Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Cinematograph Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 April], That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. John Farr: When our debate terminated at 2.30 pm last Friday I was in the process of rising to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on his initiative and good fortune in piloting the Bill thus far through the House. It was apparent from the detailed and exhaustive discussions last Friday that the Bill met with a good deal of support from hon. Members, and I have no wish to delay the satisfactory and happy completion of its passage through the House.
In many respects the Bill fills a great need. During our discussions last Friday on Report and previously in Committee reference was made to the situation in the countryside generally and in rural and sparsely populated areas where many cinemas have had to close for one reason or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and other hon. Members touched on the reasons which lay behind that. If such cinemas have not been either demolished or made into supermarkets or bingo halls or put to some other use, I hope that the Bill will encourage some of those much-needed cinema facilities to reopen in sparsely populated areas.
Many cinemas in my area have closed, not so much because of the lack of popularity as because they have been unable to charge a satisfactory price to enable them to continue to operate successfully. I have no doubt that several of the causes of their being put out of business are dealt with by the Bill and that when it is enacted it will be easier for public cinemas in sparsely populated areas to continue to operate at a reasonable profit.
It has been said that the Bill is a step into the video age. A number of changes were touched on in Committee and last Friday on Report. New licensing procedures were discussed. They will now be carried out by the Home Office as opposed to the Customs and Excise. It was made clear that that change is generally welcomed. It will lead to greater efficiency and greater humanity and will be for the general benefit. However, when on the rare occasion the issue of a licence by the Home Office is refused, will that be final or will an unsuccessful applicant have a

chance to submit a fresh application in the not-too-distant future or at least to be informed of the reason for the licence not being issued?
Last Friday, a number of hon. Members pointed out that it would be a good idea possibly to delegate to local authorities the Home Office duty of issuing licences. We quite understand that, if we are to get a nationwide pattern of performance, it will not be very satisfactory to have variations in the treatment of licence applications by different local authorities. In spite of that, however, and appreciating that we must have similar action throughout the country on measures of this nature, I hope that the advice of local authorities at least will be sought and that it will be listened to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham tabled a number of amendments for discussion last Friday dealing with the level of penalties, and we debated whether they were sufficient in the light of the large profits likely to arise from the activities that they sought to curb. Although the level of penalties laid down in the Bill appears to be adequate, it has occurred to me that there might be something to be said for laying down a minimum penalty as well as a maximum penalty. I appreciate that it is a practice which Parliament has not normally thought it fit to follow.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I remind my hon. Friend that there is a minimum penalty for losing a driver's licence in certain circumstances.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful advice. He reminds me that the loss of a driver's licence can incur a minimum penalty. But I pointed out last week when we discussed the penalties for other offences that normally the maximum is very high and there is no minimum. In respect of certain penalties the average imposed by the courts has been 7, 8 or 9 per cent. of the maxima laid down by Parliament. One way of explaining Parliament's thinking would be to lay down some form of minimum with which the courts had to comply.
I am glad to know that the Bill deals with home videos, apparatus and equipment. The pirating of video tapes is a £160 million a year business, of which more than £100 million is entirely illicit. That is a very large sum, and I believe that the Bill will go some small way towards making it more difficult for the pirates to get away with it. At the moment they have to fear a maximum penalty of only £50 which is laid down in one of the copyright Acts.
I am especially grateful to the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham for undertaking to consider before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses whether we should change its title. My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend both said that they would welcome helpful suggestions. I can assure them that a number of us are giving the matter active consideration. The present title seems to be almost Victorian. It is hopelessly out of date.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr Patrick Mayhew): Bioscope.

Mr. Farr: It is totally inappropriate to the jargon of today. Before the Bill reaches the statute book, there is a great deal to be said for choosing a more modern title.
Despite our thorough consideration of the Bill, many questions remain unanswered. One of them relates to video lounges.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that on Third Reading hon. Members may discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Farr: I was about to ask whether it was clear from the Bill what was the position of a video lounge in a pub or a club. It does not appear to be covered in the Bill, but it may be, and that is why I raise it now. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has said in the past that it is covered in the Bill, but I have searched through the Bill and, at the risk of getting out of order again, I must say that I cannot see any reference to it. I raise the matter because it is one about which the House would like some clarification.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can assure my hon. Friend that in my judgment he is in order in raising the matter because it is covered by the Bill.
The Bill deals with all manifestations of moving pictures exhibited for gain. My hon. Friend has in mind the showing of a video film in a pub or a club. The question for consideration is whether any charges are made and, if so—even if they are purported to be for other services or for drinks—it will be up to the courts to decide whether the total enterprise, including the video display, is for gain. The passing of money will be a prima facie suggestion that it is for gain, and it will be up to those charged with an offence to rebut that evidence.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has set my mind at rest on two counts: first, that I was in order after all, and, secondly, that video lounges in pubs or clubs are covered by the Bill.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will tell us the Home Office's thinking in respect of the regular alteration or updating of the level of penalties. Certain measures in the past have been subject to the updating of the maximum penalties in criminal justice Acts. Bearing in mind the tremendous profits which can be made from video displays, to say nothing of the change in the value of money, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can advise the House whether the maximum penalties provided for in the Bill are to be constant or whether they will be subject to periodic review.
With those few remarks, again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). I want also to pay tribute to all those right hon. and hon. Members who play a part in our Friday sittings. The Bill is a good example of excellent use of the good fortune that an hon. Member has in coming high in the Ballot for Private Member's Bills. It has shown a way forward for the Government in many of the areas associated with pornography or obscenity, in that it takes an indirect but clear approach to the problems that can arise in cinemas and video lounges.
I said on Report that one of the advantages of having tight regulations for licensing, which I see as the essence of the Bill, is that it is clear that an establishment either has a licence or it has not. That avoids many of the problems in taking cases to court for the display of obscene or pornographic material. I have slight doubts about

whether my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is confined to moving pictures. I do not know whether there is much of a problem with still photographs that might be displayed in a carousel through a slide projector. However, that is a minor point that should not upset the passage of the Bill.
Last week, I referred to the problem of cinema clubs—perhaps "clubs" should be in inverted commas—appearing in ordinary residential or suburban parts of the country. I accept that that applies equally in more rural areas. Naturally, my direct concern is for my constituency. I hesitate to see Parliament leave the law in such a confused state that these establishments could spread in the high streets and byroads of a constituency such as mine, which is almost exclusively residential and a good family area. It is the job of Parliament to make sure that those areas are protected, as well as trying to extend protection into parts of the central areas of cities where these establishments have prospered.
It is said that many people go to these lewd displays because they fulfil a need. I say that they provide a temptation that should not be there. I have travelled around the world, and in my opinion the cities where there is effective control of such establishments are no worse than the cities that have lost control. I see no reason why, if there is an overwhelming demand, people cannot elect to their local councils, the licensing authorities, people who fulfil the wishes of the voters. If voters want many licensed establishments showing the kind of material that I believe we can well do without, however attractive it may be, it is open to the electorate to follow that course. However, I hesitate to welcome Parliament continuing to allow unlicensed establishments that are clearly safety traps for the unwary, and which pass through a loophole in the law that allows them to display material that would not have been allowed 20 years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough talked about cinemas. I am in favour of opportunities for cinemas to provide family entertainment. If we can get rid of the opportunity for some of these establishments to be converted into money-spinners for what might loosely be called adult entertainment, parents will be more likely to go out with their children for a shared experience to see an entertaining film. We should encourage, for example, more films like "Chariots of Fire", instead of many of the films that are frequently advertised in the evening press. Often, except perhaps at half-term and the first week of the summer holidays, it is almost impossible to find a film to which one can take a child under the age of 14.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Only a few years ago in my constituency every Saturday morning a chain of cinemas used to show movies suitable for children. Often on a wet February or March morning, when the children were at a loose end, the cinemas were packed. It was an excellent practice, because the cinemas showed wholesome and suitable films. The practice has ended now, because cinemas have disappeared.

Mr. Bottomley: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Although I am probably one of the younger Members of the House, I remember that when I was about 10 on Saturday mornings I used to go only 100 yards to the local cinema, and for 6d I was entertained for two or three hours by a diet of adventurous and cliff-hanging films, which made me want to go back. I was in safe surroundings, which were fairly local. No doubt it provided a welcome


break for my parents, and no doubt they said "We are very glad that young Peter has the opportunity to go out with other people of his own age." It was wholesome entertainment. We need to promote the positive, as well as trying to put a rein on objectionable material and opportunities.
I mentioned the need for clarity about whether an establishment has a licence. For that we are grateful to my hon. Friend for finding a way through the morass that has faced Parliament, although I recognise that, outside the Bill, at some stage more attention will need to be paid to the Williams committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough raised the matter of minimum penalties. I am glad that the Bill establishes maximum penalties at a high level. In my view, it would have been difficult to put in minimum penalties, because there could be prosecutions on technicalities. Although there should not be too many prosecutions on pure technicalities, one should allow the courts to impose small penalties for minor offences. If, for example, a fire exit sign was missing and had been missing for some time, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a prosecution and for a minimum penalty to be imposed in such circumstances.
However, that is almost in parenthesis. It is important to recognise that Parliament lays down high maximum penalties for offences of the kind described in the Bill because of the financial encouragement to operators to repeat the offence. With low penalties they could view it as a low operating tax. One of the reasons why we need to explain why penaalties appear to be higher in this kind of neo-property matter than in certain criminal offences against the person is the financial inducement to the offender to repeat the offence. With certain exceptions, people committing criminal offences against the individual are rarely likely to repeat them purely for financial reasons. The exceptions, of course, are bank robbers and people who rob sub-post offices.
I conclude by returning to a subject that I raised on Report. The opportunities for corruption that are available to licensing operators and to the police exist when there is a lack of clarity about the procedures and a lack of predictability in the judgments of the courts. One of the reasons for the spread of sex cinemas in the centres of cities has been the difficulty of prosecution. Every time a conviction fails, it encourages those who are supposed to be monitoring the operation of these establishments and the material that they provide to look the other way. Once that kind of doubt arises, some of the corruption that has existed in the past will happen again. I very much doubt whether many of the establishments that exist in the centre of London should be operating under existing legislation. Once we have the licensing provisions, it will become clear that they are not authorised and no amount of corruption will deal with the central issue of whether or not they have a licence.
I echo the gratitude of many families around the country to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham for promoting this Bill. It is the kind of issue on which the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister have helped to raise the status of Parliament, by showing that, even at a time when there are great issues of party controversy and a national crisis, Parliament still has time to plug away at blocking loopholes that have led many unscrupulous and unworthy people to prey on society and create the kind of conditions

that make family life more difficult. I greatly welcome the Bill, and I hope that it has a speedy passage through the other place.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like my hon. Friends, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on his prescience in promoting this modest but important measure to plug a loophole in our cinematographic licensing laws.
I suspect that today we shall be discussing not only this Bill but the Firearms Bill. Therefore, at the outset, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has facilitated the progress of both Bills in the House. He has frequently been unfairly accused of not progressing legislation to deal with problems of violence, sadism, pornography and the many other disagreeeable aspects which in my judgment have arisen in part as a fall-out from the so-called permissive society of the 1960s. The truth is the opposite. No Home Secretary has shown more dilligence or a greater desire to advance legislation designed to deal with the moral corruption of our society than my right hon. Friend. It is therefore proper that tribute be paid to him and that the many false accusations made against him should once and for all be dispersed
As I said, the Bill plugs a loophole. The Act which it effectively amends originally excluded from the licensing requirements film exhibitions given in private dwellings—film exhibitions to which the public were not admitted or were admitted without payment—and film exhibitions given by organisations certificated as non-profit-making by the Customs and Excise. In short, Parliament originally confined the licensing arrangements to commercial cinemas and excluded genuine private film societies and charitable, educational, church, political and sporting organisations which might wish from time to time to show films as part of their general programme of activities. I think that that is a fair description of the state of the law that faced my hon. Friend when he introduced his Bill.
Those exceptions, designed to avoid unnecessary restrictions, have in fact created a loophole which has increasingly been exploited by cinemas which, in effect, are open to the public, but which masquerade as private clubs to escape the limitations and obligations of a licence in so far as it would apply if they were commercial cinemas.
The police have found it almost impossible to bring successful prosecutions, due to the loopholes that I have described. I am sure that the Bill will greatly assist the police, especially the Metropolitan Police, in their efforts to stamp out the vile practices now found in so many parts of Soho. Moreover, the penalties available under the previous legislation were far too light. As a result, even if clubs were prosecuted, they could virtually laugh at the law as the penalties that could be imposed on them were derisory by comparison with the profit to be made from these so-called private displays.
As my hon. Friend has recognised, earlier attempts were made to remedy the problem—for example, in 1973, when a Bill received a Second Reading but in practice got nowhere. Therefore, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—I think that my hon. Friend will agree on that—my hon. Friend has returned most effectively to the charge.
I wish to make three points—one general, and two specific. In general, I believe that there is a connection between publicly exhibited pornography, sadism and violence and the growth of crime in our society. I appreciate that that proposition is not directly provable and that many sociologists argue that there is no positive evidence to prove that the crime rate increases as pornography, violence and sexual display are generated in our society. I can only say that the experience of many who have to deal with criminals is that from time to time such offenders are so titillated and stimulated by the display of sadism and sexual violence that they come out of a club or cinema in a state likely to lead them to commit further violence. The evidence is anecdotal rather than quantitative, but I have little doubt that the public display of sadism, cruelty and violence helps to generate crime.
As my hon. Friend said, the violence displayed at many of these cinemas is not necessarily sexual. He referred to some of the Kung Fu films shown in so-called martial arts clubs in our big cities. In my view, such films are plainly calculated to arouse sadistic pleasure by the lingering depiction of pain, mutilation and death.
More usually, of course, the violence is sexual. There is rape, and, as an added bonus, the multiple rape or so-called "gang bang" in which the women's resistance is generally portrayed as being transformed by the enforced rape to which she is subjected into abject, almost animal gratitude. I can think of nothing that more degrades women than that. In so far as the Bill will help to avoid that kind of depiction of cruelty, my hon. Friend is doing an important service.
On the two lesser points, I remain concerned that the process of certification of small village clubs in rural areas, which will rightly continue to seek licences to show harmless films to local people, may become burdensome and expensive. At an earlier stage of the Bill, I drew the Minister's attention to various small clubs in my constituency. As rural transport has virtually disappeared, in many small village halls the over-sixties club, the Boy Scouts, the British Legion, and the myriad local voluntary groups, whose efforts we so much prize, put on small film shows for the benefit of local people. They are, of course, clubs or charitable organisations for the purpose of the Bill, but in future they will require proper certificates issued by the Home Office rather than by the Customs and Excise in order lawfully to continue such showings.
That is the essence of the regulations that the Bill will introduce, but I do not complain about that.
However, there is a problem of bureaucracy. The secretary of the British Legion club in a small village in the heart of Suffolk will have to apply to something called the Home Office. The secretary will need to know exactly what that means. Unlike most Government Departments, the Home Office does not have regional or local branch offices. The Customs and Excise does have such offices. Therefore, when the secretary of a club has a video cassette made up with which to show a little film in, for example, Norton, in the heart of Suffolk, or in one of the rural villages, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your constituency, he will have to write to the Home Office in Whitehall.
The secretary will say that he is seeking certification to show a film or to enable his club to be licensed for the next few years so that it can show all films that are not—for the purposes of the Bill—objectionable. What will happen? I

hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will take us through the stages to acquire a certificate. The Home Office—whatever that means—will presumably appoint an assistant secretary or a senior executive officer to be in charge of receiving and processing applications and of deciding whether a club should have a licence. That officer will need some criteria. He will need a bit of paper with some rules—presumably endorsed by a Minister—by which to judge whether it is appropriate to issue a certificate.
That is a perfectly conventional process of government and I make no complaint. However, if small clubs all over the country are to be told that they must do that, they should also be told how to go about it. As the House knows, there has been an explosion in the use of video cassette films. I welcome that. In many of the rural areas buses have disappeared and it is good that the over-sixties, the British Legion, and so on, should be able to see harmless, entertaining and exciting films in their villages without having to go to market towns where the cinemas are almost certainly showing only "X" films.
There will be many applications, and it is important that secretaries of clubs should know how to go about things. Will local sub-postmasters be asked to display a notice telling village clubs that they are required to seek licences and how to go about it?
May I have an assurance that the Home Office will deal with the matter with dispatch and that the fee charged will be reasonable? The difficulty is that fees are usually reasonable at the beginning. I do not know whether the fee will be £3, £5, or any other figure, but I hope that we shall be told. However, although the Government are happily reducing inflation, it will not disappear from our system. As the years go by, such things tend to be forgotten, but, after a sudden Treasury edict, Departments may start to consider their various fee-charging operations and may suddenly say "Oh, my word, here is the private club cinematographic certificate. The fee has remained at £3 or £5, so we had better increase it to £10 or £15." Like most of my hon. Friends, I have an interest in this matter, because those representing rural constituencies will suddenly be confronted by all sorts of immensely worthy village clubs that have been outraged by the sudden increase in the charge for the certificates that they must obtain to carry out a perfectly harmless activity.
In saying that, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Farham will understand that I am not criticising his admirable Bill, which I support. However, as the Customs and Excise is no longer to have anything to do with the matter—I welcome anything that gets things out of the control of the VAT inspectorate—matters will lie with the Home Office. That Department does not have a reputation for electrifying speed, so I should like to know how people are to be informed of their duties under the Bill. May I have an assurance that the paperwork involved will not be cumbersome and that the fee will remain reasonable?
May I also have an assurance that if a club's bona fides are not in doubt—I refer, for example, to an allotment holders association in Walsham le Willows—and if there is no reason to suppose that it will slip a Kung Fu pornographic film into the middle of its programme on gardening, it will be given a certificate that lasts for a number of years and not a certificate that has to be renewed after a year? Will such a club be given a certificate that will allow it to continue indefinitely, without a further fee,


unless the police have reason to believe that it has offended against the law by importing some salacious matter into its normal programmes? I hope that the certificate will be semi-permanent.
By any standard, £10,000 is a walloping big fine for Britain. I have already mentioned the difficulties that I experienced when I tried to persuade the Cabinet and the House to accept that the fine for serious pollution commited by industry should be increased to £5,000. I had in mind the grievous offences of deliberately and massively fouling our rivers and persistently polluting the air despite all the efforts of the Alkali Inspectorate to clean it. After the greatest difficulty, it was agreed that the fine should be raised to £5,000 and applied to the large industrial enterprises that offended against the law in that way. But the House was right to be sceptical about any drastic increase in the level of fine.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State knows more about the law than I, but I believe that certain offences are defined by the level of fine that the magistrates' court can impose. There is a convention that the seriousness of certain offences is virtually defined by the fact that the offence is subject to six months' imprisonment or to a fine of £1,000. Here, for the first time, we are providing that a magistrates' court can impose a fine that is wildly out of line with the normal fine that a magistrates' court is allowed to impose. Indeed, it is much greater than the fines that can be imposed for certain offences of criminal violence.
It would be ironic if the fine for showing an act of sadistic violence in a private club for gain was higher than the fine that we impose for such an act committed against an individual in the street. I hope that that will not be the case, but in my experience some police officers have been badly assaulted and knocked about and the magistrates' court has bound over the offender or imposed a fine of £300 or £400. There would he a great disturbance in the police service and among the public generally if a club owner who showed a film including vicarious, sadistic violence against police officers were to be fined £10,000 and stopped, with which I agree, whereas a similar act committed in the flesh could not be dealt with so seriously in the magistrates' court.
My hon. and learned Friend may say that the offence would go to a higher court where the fines are larger, but in my experience there are many cases where the penalties for violence against the person and for certain sadistic practices, such as multiple rape, do not always include a prison sentence. I accept that they do generally, but sometimes they do not. It is important that the penalties available to our courts should have, first, some consistency and, secondly, a relationship to the perceived noxiousness of the offence. My hon. and learned Friend, who has so much experience at the Bar and, since his appointment in the Home Office, will appreciate my point. I do not complain, because I believe that those who make gains out of vicious practices should be subjected to what, in effect, are terminal fines that will put them out of business altogether. The Bill will do that. I approve of it, but it is important that the sideways vision that Ministers can bring to the House is applied so that there are no anomalous penalties as between one offence and another. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say something about consistency and the nature of the fines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has performed a public service. We should pay tribute to him

and to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for taking a small but important further step in the control of sadism and violence in our society.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I wish to follow up the latter point of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) about the differences in fines and return, for final clarification, to the anomalies between the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill now in another place and the Bill that we are considering today.
During our debate last Friday the Minister of State said that he appreciated that it was difficult to have two different pieces of legislation, with different titles, which aim to do the same thing in the case of cinema clubs but which provide for different penalties. He said, in reply to my intervention, that it would be possible to align the fines. He did not say when or how that would be done. This Bill will now go to another place. Is it the intention of the Government or the promoter to align the fines to those in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? If so, will the Minister give us that assurance, because it is unsatisfactory to have two pieces of legislation that are intended to tackle the same offence? It would be better to have one measure, but if we must have two there should be the same fine in both. Those who are prosecuting can choose under which piece of legislation to prosecute.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The first Bill that received a Second Reading in the House after I took my seat eight and a half years ago was the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, which was brought forward by the then Home Secretary, now Lord Carr. It received an unopposed Second Reading. After that Bill, which failed because of the general election shortly after its introduction on Second Reading, a series of attempts were made to get the Bill on to the statute book. However, for a variety of reasons—not because of opposition in the House—those attempts failed.
During the previous Session we succeeded in getting on to the statute book the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on getting the Cinematograph Bill—the second half of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill—to this stage. I hope sincerely that this valuable Bill will come on to the statute book shortly in order to complete the process of controlling the degrading material that has been all too prevalent in our society and to which the House first put its hand nearly 10 years ago. I know from my own experience last year the amount of work involved in getting a Bill to this stage and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. I also congratulate the Home Office on supporting my hon. Friend's efforts. I am sure that, as I was last year, he has been inundated with correspondence in support of his Bill. I know that it will be as warmly welcomed as was the Indecent Displays (Control) Act and that it will be as effective in its worthy and necessary purpose. My hon. Friend has done the House and the country a service in getting the Bill to this stage and I hope that we shall give it a Third Reading shortly.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): It has been very pleasant for me to listen to the


congratulations that have come from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on bringing the Bill so far. I was sorry that I could not be present at the previous debate on Third Reading, but I have read the account in the Official Report and I know that my hon. Friend received further well-deserved congratulations on that occasion. We in the Home Office have been glad to be of some assistance—as I hope we have—in getting the Bill to its present stage.
Perhaps it would be convenient for me to deal as best I may with the various questions that I was asked today before I come to the substance of my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked me about those organisations that seek a certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Bill and asked whether an unsuccessful applicant would have the opportunity to re-apply after refusal of a certificate by the Home Office. There is no formal appeals procedure. That would normally be unnecessarily cumbersome, given the small number of applications that are involved—fewer than 50 certificates have been issued—but there is nothing to prevent a body from re-applying at a later date. The body concerned could expect to be told the reasons why an application had been refused. The reasons would relate to the circumstances in which, as the Bill provides, the Secretary of State may not issue a certificate.
My hon. Friend asked whether the advice of local authorities would at least be sought. It is open to the Home Office to make such inquiries as it thinks necessary in deciding whether it would be right to issue a certificate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with this issue on Third Reading last week and said that relatively short inquiries would be necessary. I doubt whether it would normally be necessary to consult the local authority concerned. The bodies which have been issued with certificates to date are clearly eligible for them. This can be readily discerned from scrutinising their constitutions and accounts.
My right hon. Friend referred to accounts last week. I am sure that if it were thought necessary to do so, the local authority concerned would be approached. There is no bar on an authority being approached and the Home Office, being the sensible organisation that it is, would be eager to assist if it felt that the facts indicated that that would be helpful.
My hon. Friend talked about laying down a minimum penalty. He argued that a maximum penalty represents Parliament's idea of the gravity of an offence and that a minimum penalty would, as it were, complete the job. I am personally opposed to the idea of fettering the courts' discretion when it comes to applying a sentence, subject to a maximum that has been fixed by Parliament. That has been the traditional view in this country. One well-known exception to that principle is the statutory penalty for murder. Treason and piracy on the high seas still carry the death penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has reminded us that the offence of driving while under the influence of drink carries a statutory requirement of disqualification, but that relates more to safety than to penal policy.
We hold firmly to the view that it is not right to fetter the courts. Subject to a maximum penalty, the courts

should have unfettered discretion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case established in the evidence, to fix the level of fine that they consider to be appropriate.

Mr. Farr: I accept entirely that my hon. and learned Friend is talking about a matter of principle. However, the range of different offences set out in the Firearms Act 1968 number 50 and they can be tried either at the upper or lower court. For many years both the upper and lower courts have inflicted well below 10 per cent. of the maxima which Parliament laid down where a person has been found guilty. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that in those circumstances Parliament's wishes are being ignored by the courts?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that that follows. Parliament fixes a maximum fine for application in offences of the utmost gravity. We can readily visualise in another context offences that carry a sentence of life imprisonment as a maximum but not as a statutory obligatory sentence that can be imposed in circumstances that are below the level of utmost gravity. In those circumstances—they are present in the majority of cases—it is appropriate for the courts to award sentences of imprisonment that are well below a life sentence, or, if 14 years is taken as a maximum, well below 14 years. Without wishing to comment on the levels of fine to which my hon. Friend refers, I do not believe that it can be said that Parliament's wishes are being flouted if it imposes a maximum fine of £200, for example, and the courts award an average fine of £25 or £30.
I understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and it is one that we have had to deal with on previous occasions. We shall have to deal with it in our discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill. I must take a firm stand on the principle that I have endeavoured to describe.
Questions have been raised about the updating of penalties and the Home Office's thinking on updating. The Criminal Justice Bill provides for regular updating of penalties having regard to any changes that may have taken place in the value of money. When that Bill is upon the statute book it will be open to the Home Secretary of the day to place an order before the House that provides for the uprating of financial penalties. As the Bill is drafted it will not apply to fines that are as large as £10,000, but we propose in another place to make provision for fines of that amount. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friends can be satisfied that revision will be made and that this level of fine will not become fossilised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), who courteously told me that a constituency engagement would prevent him from remaining in his place, said some kind things about the Home Office and its part in getting the Bill to this stage. I endorse his remark that the Bill will block loopholes through which the unscrupulous have made money out of activities of which Parliament has expressed strong disapproval.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) paid a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It was generous of my hon. Friend to introduce his speech with that tribute. He and I know that his kind words have been well earned by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked what the procedure would be for acquiring a


certificate of exemption. He drew attention to the fairly modest scale of the organisations in villages and rural areas that would be applying for exemptions. He said that the bureaucracy should not be so great that such organisations would be discouraged, or would receive certificates long after the event in respect of which they were applying. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with this issue fairly extensively last week in column 1094 of Hansard. He made it plain that there will be a transfer of the function that is now undertaken by Customs and Excise and that no new bureaucracy is envisaged. It is a relatively simple matter. If a club does not admit the public on payment and it is not run for private gain, it will not need a cinematograph licence or an exempted organisation certificate.
An exempted organisation certificate will be required only when the public is admitted on payment on a more frequent basis than six times a year. Most of the clients will not need to apply for a certificate. Applications for certificates will be dealt with as quickly as possible. I recognise the need for speed. I also recognise that most of those clubs are run by volunteers who have masses of other things to do. The people who carry out those voluntary duties tend to have a large number of other voluntary duties and to be the people who do everything in a village. Therefore, we recognise that they will not be the people who have the advantages and assets of great business organisations. We shall do our best to process the applications at least no less quickly than they have been processed by the Customs and Excise.
An organisation applying to the Home Office will probably be asked to produce a copy of its constitution and its accounts for the previous year. It will usually be apparent that a body is eligible, or is not, as the case may be. A quick decision can then be given. The fee will be kept as low as possible. There are few applications and the work involved should be minimal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am greatly reassured by my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will clarify this point. Does he visualise the possibility that an organisation such as the women's institute or the over-sixties clubs could be given an overall certificate? There may be occasions when such organisations show films more than six times a year and when they make a profit. Their motive may not be gain but they may wish to make a profit from the showing to cover the overheads of hiring the village hall or so that they can make a contribution to other good causes, such as meals on wheels. I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to answer that question at this stage. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place he will consider the possibility that some organisations can have a blanket agreement.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I entirely understand the thinking behind his suggestion, which is eminently worth considering. We should like to help if we can and we shall give serious consideration to his suggestion.
Certificates are currently issued for two years. In response to my hon. Friend's suggestion we shall consider whether they should be issued for a longer period with a view to reducing the work and keeping the fee to a minimum.
My hon. Friend asked about the level of fines. I took note of the point that he made. We are saying that £10,000

should be the maximum fine for someone who breaks the provisions of the Bill once it is enacted, by showing a sadistic film or a film involving an offence which, if it were actually perpetrated, would be a criminal offence. My hon. Friend said that it would be bizarre if that fine were greater than a fine that could be imposed if the offence were committed in the flesh. I understand that. If the film portrays something of gravity, almost certainly it will be triable on indictment. My hon. Friend will know that if it is triable on indictment the level of fine in almost every case—if not every case—is unlimited. The courts' discretion is untrammelled. The fine would not be limited to £10,000.
For a long time our law has provided that fines may not be imposed in a criminal case without having regard to the means of the offender to pay, for obvious and sensible reasons. Therefore, the point to be borne in mind is that the House believes that £10,000 is the correct level as the maximum fine for an offence under the Bill because we believe that a great deal of money is made out of those activities. The maximum fine should take account of that fact. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that he need feel that there are grounds for the anxiety that he expressed, particularly bearing in mind that when the offence is triable on indictment the maximum fine is unlimited.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) asked how we would deal with the levels of fines imposed individually by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals with sex shop offences, and this Bill. We intend that the maximum fine shall be the same in each case. We shall take steps in another place to ensure that the maximum fine in the Bill dealing with sex shops is increased accordingly. I hope that I have dealt with the questions that have been asked.
The sympathetic consideration which has been given to this measure, and to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill both here and in another place, has confirmed that there is a good deal of concern about the activities of what has been called the "sex industry". In particular, there is concern about the lack of effective powers at present over sex shops and sex cinemas, and a widespread feeling that local authorities should have a greater measure of control over those premises.
One way, perhaps, of tackling this problem would be to attempt a fundamental reform of the laws governing the publication, sale and exhibition of pornography. This would be in the hope that agreement could be reached on what may or may not be sold or exhibited lawfully, and in what circumstances, and in the further hope that the necessary degree of control could be exercised simply by the need to comply with the general provisions of the criminal law. The assumption would be that if a shop was selling articles, or if a cinema was exhibiting a film or cassette, which complied with the general provisions of the criminal law, no further controls would be necessary.
I suggest, however, that this approach would present a number of formidable difficulties, which serve to confirm the wisdom of the rather different approach adopted in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and by the Government in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
It is clear, I think, from the very mixed reception given to the recommendations made by the Williams committee on obscenity and film censorship, that at present it would


be a profoundly difficult task to reach any wide measure of agreement on the direction and detail of any fundamental reform of the law on obscenity.
Last June I endeavoured to say in the debate on the Williams committee report that the Government's view is that, in the absence of any early prospect of this measure of agreement being achieved, it is sensible to look to make progress in more limited areas where there may be a greater consensus about what needs to be done. Otherwise that might be described as the nibbling, rather than the overall, approach.
It is also, I think, clear that the general provisions of the criminal law—even if amended or reformed—may not always provide, in some respects, a sufficiently sensitive and flexible means of control. There are always liable to be materials or articles about the position of which under obscenity legislation is in doubt and where the authorities are dubious about the chances of a criminal prosecution, but the sale or exhibition of which is liable to cause offence in a particular locality. This point is already recognised to a considerable extent in the case of the cinema. Films are subject to the provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts, but this layer of control is overlaid by the much more direct and refined control provided by the cinema licensing system. As the House is aware, this system gives local authorities complete discretion over what may be shown in the cinemas in their area.
The very different arrangements governing the cinema attest to the widespread agreement—which the discussions on my hon. Friend's Bill have confirmed—that there is a need for particular caution when considering the impact of film. It is worth recalling at this point what the Williams committee had to say on this matter in chapter 12 of its report. It commented in paragraph 12.10:
Film, in our view, is a uniquely powerful instrument: the close-up, fast cutting, the sophistication of modern make-up and special effects techniques, the heightening effect of sound effects and music, all combine on the large screen to produce an impact which no other medium can create.".
Discussing whether there should continue to be a system of film censorship for adults, the committee remarked:
What clinched the argument for some of us at least was the sight of some of the films with which the censorship presently interferes. We feel it necessary to say to many people who express liberal sentiments about the principle of adult freedom to choose that we were totally unprepared for the sadistic material that some film makers are prepared to produce. We are not here referring to the explicit portrayal of sexual activity or to anything which simply attracts charges of offensiveness. Films that exploit a taste for torture and sadistic violence do raise further, and disturbing questions.
The committee added:
It is not simply the extremity of the violence which concerns us: we found it extremely disturbing that highly explicit depictions of mutilation, savagery, menace and humiliation should be presented for the entertainment of an audience in a way that appeared to emphasise the pleasures of sadism. Indeed, some of the film sequences we saw seemed to have no purpose or justification other than to reinforce or sell the idea that it can be highly pleasurable to inflict injury, pain or humiliation (often in a sexual context) on others.
The committee recommended that there should continue to be a film censorship system applying to children and adults, although, as hon. Members will be aware, it proposed a number of changes, including the

replacement of the present British Board of Film Censors by a statutory film examining board and the abolition of the censorship powers of local authorities.
The committee also recommended—this goes to the heart of my hon. Friend's Bill—an extension of the film censorship system in order that it should apply to the bogus commercial "clubs". Before considering how that is achieved in my hon. Friend's Bill, it is worth reflecting that the Williams committee gave considerable thought to the matter. It has been, as is clearly shown in the passage that I referred to, taken by surprise by the scale and quality of the material included in the films. It is against the background of the present system of licensing that we need to consider the activities of the bogus commercial clubs.
The Williams committee believed that the abuses represented by those establishments are of two kinds. First, to evade film censorship requirements the clubs also evaded safety requirements. I do not believe that anyone is likely to dispute that it is wholly unsatisfactory that these premises should not have to comply with the same safety standards as other commercial cinemas. Secondly, the committee pointed out that there was no control at all over the nature of the films shown in these premises—apart from the provision of the Obscene Publications Acts—or over the audiences admitted to them. The committee commented in paragraph 12.35 of its report:
Although many clubs show films which we would regard as acceptable for restricted viewing, this is not always the case. We were told that one sadistic sex film which we saw might have been shown in clubs in this country; our view was that the film would be turned down by any censorship system, however liberal, and we noted in our talks with the French film censor that the same and similar films are banned entirely in France despite the existence of a special category there for films which are pornographic or, indeed, incite to violenece. There are a number of film clubs which specialise in oriental martial arts films which can be extremely violent and which are often required to be cut by the British Board of Film Censors even before being given an 'X' certificate. The admission of children to these clubs means that uncensored films containing the kind of material which would not be passed even for adult veiwing in a public cinema, is being shown without any restriction at all on who may see it. We consider it desirable that the scope of the censorship system should be extended so as to impose some control on what at present is subject to none. There is a need both to draw the line at what is acceptable even for restricted audiences and to ensure that restrictions are properly observed.
As my hon. Friend has made plain on a number of occasions, the reason that these premises have been able to evade the cinema licensing arrangements is that they take advantage of an exemption from licensing in section 5(1) of the Cinematograph Act 1952 for exhibitions to which the public are not admitted. That exemption, as the side note to the section indicates, was intended to benefit private non-commercial exhibitions of the kind held by many bona fide clubs and societies. Parliament plainly did not envisage that it would be exploited for commercial reasons.
The Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, introduced by the Government of the day in the 1973–74 Session, proposed, among other matters, that that loophole should be blocked by qualifying the exemption so that exhibitions promoted for private gain would require a licence. The same recommendation was made by the Williams committee and has been adopted by my hon. Friend in clause 2 of his Bill. I am glad to note that in the proceedings to date that approach seems to have met with general approval. It is a more profitable way of proceeding than trying to distinguish between bogus and bona fide


clubs. It is notoriously difficult to do the latter. Moreover, there must be many exhibitions given by churches, schools and other bodies which, although clearly non-commercial, are not run on club lines and which would be adversely affected if exemptions from the cinema requirements were confined strictly to clubs.
My hon. Friend's Bill is to be commended for the attention that it pays to the practical workings of the "private gain" test. Clause 2 will greatly assist the prosecution in proving private gain, particularly by ensuring that such ruses as inflated cloakroom charges will not offer a means of evasion. At the same time it ensures that non-commercial members' clubs—about which the hon. Member for Halifax expressed concern—will not be caught inadvertently by the private gain test simply because the proceeds of an exhibition benefit individuals as members of a club.
Having considered the way in which the Bill will bring the bogus clubs within the cinema licensing system, it is right to ask how the cinema licensing authorities will exercise their powers. The hon. Lady seemed concerned at the extent to which cinema licensing authorities appeared content to rely on the judgment of the British Board of Film Censors. She said on Second Reading that only about 70 cinema licensing authorities take a regular interest in the subject.
The Government made clear in last June's debate that they believe that there is a great deal to be said in favour of retaining local authority participation. But we would not go as far as the hon. Lady in suggesting that local authorities ought to be involved routinely in viewing films. It seems perfectly reasonable that a licensing authority should choose to rely on the British Board of Film Censors, although reserving its right to review a particular film if it thinks that there is cause to do so and, if necessary, to differ from the board's judgment. I do not

believe that the fact that the great majority of cinema licensing authorities are largely content to rely on the board is a matter which is to be deplored.
My hon. Friend's Bill also makes some very useful reforms in the administrative arrangements governing the cinema licensing system. It is right, as the House accepted in discussing the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend, that the fire authority should be given a clear locus in those arrangements. It is understandable that the censorship aspects of the cinema licensing system should attract most attention, but it is often forgotten that its original purpose—even recently the Williams committee called it its "main purpose"—was to provide for the physical safety of those attending cinematograph exhibitions. It is interesting to note that the 1909 Act simply spoke of
An Act to make better provision for securing safety at Cinematograph and other Exhibitions".
Only in 1952 was it made clear that the licensing authority's powers included censorship.
I am sure that anyone who has had cause to consult the existing legislation will appreciate the case for consolidating it in one comprehensive measure on cinematograph exhibitions. We shall give serious consideration to the possibility of such a measure, and the steps that are being taken in my hon. Friend's Bill will pave the way for that. That in itself is a good reason for urging that the Bill be given a Third Reading and rapid passage to the statute book. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is an extremely worthwhile measure which deserves the support of the House as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Orders of the Day — Falkland Islands

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. -Francis Pym): The House is aware that, while we have mobilised and dispatched the task force to the South Atlantic, where it has already been involved in active operations, we have also been pursuing a highly active programme of consultation and negotiation in the search for a diplomatic solution to the present crisis.
The House has shown exemplary patience with my inability to explain the nature of the proposals that we have been examining. I now have to report to the House that Argentine intransigence has again led it to reject proposals for a diplomatic solution. In these circumstances, I think it is right that I should give the House an account of where we stand—and of where we intend to go from here.
The fact that we were able to reach a point where a new set of firm proposals could be put to both sides owes much to the tireless efforts of Mr. Haig. We are also grateful for the constructive contributions of President Belaunde of Peru. We also put forward practical ideas ourselves which take account of the Argentine position as well as our own.
Yesterday we signified that we were willing to accept and implement immediately an interim agreement which would prepare the way for a definitive settlement. Such an agreement would have demonstrated substantial flexibility on our part. If it had been accepted by the Argentines, the ceasefire, which would have been firmly linked to the beginning of Argentine withdrawal, could have come into effect as early as 5 o'clock this afternoon.
The interim agreement under discussion yesterday included the following elements: first, complete and supervised withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands, matched by corresponding withdrawal of British forces; secondly, an immediate ceasefire as soon as Agrentina accepted the agreement and agreed to withdraw; thirdly, appointment of a small group of countries acceptable to both sides which would supervise withdrawal, undertake the interim administration in consultation with the islanders' elected representatives, and perhaps help in negotiations for a definitive agreement on the status of the islands, without prejudice to our principles or to the wishes of the islanders; fourthly, suspension of the existing exclusion zones and the lifting of economic sanctions.
This agreement would not, of course, have prejudged in any way the outcome of the negotiations about the future. As the House knows, that is a sticking point for us. Pending the outcome of the negotiations, the two sides would simply have acknowledged the difference that exists between them over the status of the islands.
We have worked, and will continue to work, positively and constructively for a peaceful solution. Our agreement to these ideas make this once again abundantly clear.
I wish I could say that the Argentine junta had been working in a similar spirit; clearly it was not. The Argentines have so far insisted that a transfer of sovereignty to them should be a precondition of negotiations on a final settlement. The Argentines talk much of the need for decolonisation of the islands. What they appear to mean by this is colonisation by themselves.
In addition to this, the Argentines seem now to be obstructing progress in another but equally fundamental way. They appear to be asking for a ceasefire without any clear link with a withdrawal of their invasion force. To

grant this would be to leave them indefinitely in control of people and territory which they had illegally seized, and to deny ourselves the right of pursuing our own self-defence under article 51 of the charter.
We have not allowed Argentine military activities to halt the measures which our task force is taking. We will not allow their diplomatic obstructionism to do so either. Nor will they be allowed to halt our vigorous endeavours to find a peaceful way out of the conflict into which they have led us. This is why I welcomed and co-operated wholeheartedly with the initiatives of Mr. Haig, and why I now welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and am working closely with him.
As the House knows, the Secretary-General has put to both us and Argentina some ideas as a framework around which progress might be made. The Argentine Government claim to have accepted these ideas. We are bound to be sceptical of this claim. There is no indication that Argentina has accepted either that she must withdraw, as resolution 502 demands, or that negotiations cannot, as Argentina insists, be made conditional on the transfer of sovereignty to her. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that Argentina, having rejected ideas devised by Mr. Haig and the President of Peru, can now accept the Secretary-General's ideas which have such a similar basis.
For our part, we have accepted the general approach set out by the Secretary-General. I sent him yesterday a positive and substantive reply, making clear that the elements for a solution put forward by him were close to those which had been the basis of our efforts since the beginning of the crisis.
I made clear at the same time that in our view resolution 502 must be implemented without delay; that an unconditional ceasefire could not under any circumstances be regarded by us as a step towards this; and that implementation of a ceasefire must be unambiguously linked to the commencement of Argentine withdrawal, which must be completed within a fixed number of days. I then went on to give details, which it would not be right to reveal to the House now, of what we would be prepared to accept to fill out the framework suggested by him.
If one phase of diplomatic effort has been brought to an end by Argentine intransigence, another phase is already under way in New York. The aim remains the same: to secure the early implementation of resolution 502. We are working urgently and constructively with the Secretary-General to this end. I hope the Argentines will henceforth show that readiness and desire to reach a peaceful settlement which so far has been evident only on our side. If they do not, then let them be in no doubt that we shall do whatever may be necessary to end their unlawful occupation. Our resolve is undiminished.
It remains the Government's highest priority to achieve an early negotiated settlement if that is humanly possible.

Mr. Denis Healey: I think that all of us in the House deeply regret the breakdown of the initiatives taken by Mr Haig and President Belaunde. I think that the whole House will also share the Foreign Secretary's concern that it is only the intransigence of the Argentine Government which has prevented a ceasefire from taking place today.
I welcome very much what the right hon. Gentleman said about using the United Nations now as the channel for


negotiation. I draw the attention of the House to the remarks yesterday of our ambassador there, Sir Anthony Parsons, who said that
the United Nations is the only negotiating mechanism in the field now.
He went on to say that he had
enormous confidence in the Secretary-General.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will draw those remarks to the attention of those of his hon. Friends who spare no effort to denigrate the efficiency and impartiality of the United Nations as an organisation.
Now that the United Nations is the centre of our efforts for a diplomatic solution, may I put a number of points to the Foreign Secretary?
First, in the light of the Argentine Government's refusal to implement resolution 502, will he seek broader support among the United Nations for economic sanctions against the Argentine? In particular, will he ask the United States Administration to go somewhat further than they went in their announcement last week?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to involve the United Nations not only as an intermediary in contacts between the British and Argentine Governments but as an active participant in an ultimate settlement. In particular, now that the Argentines have rejected the American-Peruvian proposals for multinational interim administration, will he seek to persuade the United Nations to provide a transitional administration after the withdrawal of Argentine troops? Will he also explore the possibilities of a United Nations trusteeship over the islands as a long-term solution, as we suggested a fortnight ago?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will respect the advice given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations last week that neither side should seek to broaden the confilct? In particular, will he reject firmly and absolutely pressure from his hon. or right hon. Friends to bomb the airfields on the mainland? This would be a far more difficult and hazardous enterprise than even a mass direct assault on the the island of the East Falklands. It would be likely to involve loss of civilian life. It would dismay our friends. It could bring other countries in Latin America into active military support of the Argentine Government.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the start of his remarks. The whole House, I think, shares the concern about the breakdown of efforts.
My reply to the first point that the right hon. Gentleman raised is "Yes, Sir." We want the broadest possible support from as many countries as possible for further economic measures. I discussed this matter with Mr. Haig last weekend. The United States has not closed its mind to the possibility of taking further economic measures. Our strategy from the outset has been to build the pressures of the three varieties that we have often spoken about. We have undoubtedly increased pressure in all three areas throughout the period, and that still applies today. We want that to continue into the future with the support of our friends in Europe and the Commonwealth which they have so far shown. If others come along too, that can only be helpful in the overall strategy.
Whether or not the Secretary-General and the United Nations become involved in the transitional administration remains to be seen. At the moment the Secretary-General is waiting to hear what kind of response he gets from

Argentina. That is by no means certain. As to the longer term, I certainly would not rule out, and I did not do so in the the House the other day, the possibility of trusteeship. Indeed, the British Government's long-term position has been not to rule out anything, but always without prejudice to what those living on the islands prefer.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have no desire whatever to escalate military action, let alone to broaden the field of military activity. Clearly, our concern is to confine it. At this point, one cannot rule out any option. That must not be taken by the House to mean anything specific. What we are doing is to ensure that our task force has orders appropriate to the circumstances in which it is engaged in the South Atlantic while at the same time we put our maximum weight, effort and emphasis on the attempts that we are making to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Ts my right hon. Friend aware that, despite Argentine obstructiveness and culpability, if he continues resolutely and intrepidly to pursue a peaceful solution he will have the support of the House? However, will he bear in mind in the negotiations that the one thing that is paramount in this situation is the safety and security of our British task force?

Mr. Pym: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. The safety and security of our task force is uppermost in our minds. It is very much uppermost all the time in the minds of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we support his firm stand in insisting that there must be a clear link between any ceasefire and a withdrawal of the Argentine forces.? It would be incompatible with resolution 502 were any such proposition to be put to the Security Council, and I hope and believe that it never would be done. Although the right hon. Gentleman has been generous in terms of the strategic trust area for the longer term, will he accept that this is close to the points contained in his proposals for the interim? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would certainly serve to give the lie to those who claim that we are a colonial power or that we have any wish to do anything other than to resist aggression and to protect the interests of the Falkland Islanders if the British Government stated clearly that they would accept the voluntary placement of the Falkland Islands as a strategic trust area with British administration and protect it for our strategic interests with our veto power in the Security Council?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the linkage between the ceasefire and withdrawal. That has always seemed to us to be critically important.
On his second point, I am not in the business of ruling out anything even in the short term in relation to possible interim arrangements. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am in the business of keeping doors open and not closing them.

Mr. Julian Amery: I fully support my right hon. Friend in seeking a peaceful settlement, although the means so far put forward seem


unpromising, but will he give an assurance that in no way shall we hold back the military commanders from achieving our objectives by military means if necessary?

Mr. Pym: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. The position at the moment, as my right hon. Friend knows, is that the task force is securing the total exclusion zone. That it is undoubtedly doing. There is a range of military options in the future upon which we could well have to take a decision, or a series of decisions, if these efforts fail and circumstances alter. They are very much in our mind. I can certainly give the assurance that my right hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify Government policy in some important areas? First, does he rule out any United Nations appeal for a ceasefire that falls short of total agreement to the withdrawal of all Argentine forces? Secondly, does he reject General Haig's proposal published a week ago that the Argentines should be involved in the administration of the islands meanwhile? Thirdly, does he still insist upon British sovereignty subject to the islanders' veto? Fourthly, has he had assurances from President Reagan that American support would continue if British forces were used to bomb the airfields on the Argentine mainland?

Mr. Pym: The first point is ruled out. The connection and linkage between ceasefire and withdrawal is included within resolution 502. It is vital that they go together. As to the proposals—indeed, more than one series of proposals—that have been put by the United States and latterly by the United States and Peru to the Argentines, these have been rejected by the Argentines and any further consideration of them does not therefore arise.
So far as interim arrangements are concerned, I would not like to say that we have ruled out any particular options. One can imagine that interim arrangements that put Argentina in a dominant position would be totally unacceptable, but I have kept our options open.
On the issue of British sovereignty, our position is that this is British sovereign territory. We are totally clear about that. We acknowledge, however, that the Argentines feel that they have a claim to it. We believe that that claim is invalid but acknowledge that they have that claim. Let that be negotiated about in a peaceful way. That is perhaps the crunch point.
The right hon. Gentleman's last point has not arisen at the moment. I can only say that President Reagan and the United States Administration have, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, come down firmly on the British side. They are giving us all the support that they can but are not intending to become militarily involved. Mr. Haig announced the basis upon which the United States was supporting us. We are grateful for that. We respect the basis on which the United States supports us.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the course of the negotiations so far with Peru and Mr. Haig seems to indicate that Argentina backs off as soon as proposals become more specific? Does this not indicate that the Argentines are perfectly willing to negotiate provided that they get 100 per cent. of what they ask? Is that a satisfactory position?

Mr. Pym: It is not a satisfactory position. What is to be put to the test now is the response of the Argentines to the Secretary-General. We want to see what it is. They have given the impression by statements, many of which, if not most of which, as the House knows, have been very misleading, that they have accepted it. I have already remarked that we are sceptical about that. We want to find out—no doubt we shall find out in the next few days—what has been their response. We shall then see whether or not we are in business.

Mr. David Alton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Liberal Party continues to support the Government's initiatives to try to secure a solution and that we join others in the House in lamenting the fact that the Peruvian initiative has failed? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that members of the task force, who are clearly in some danger, will be left in no doubt that the additional Harriers that are on their way to the South Atlantic in the "Atlantic Conveyor" container vessel will soon be there to give the necessary air cover to ensure the air exclusion zone? Will he also accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I join other Opposition Members in looking towards a United Nations solution based on trusteeship?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that I can give him the assurances for which he asks. I can also tell him that the morale of the task force is very high indeed. It is setting about its work with the professionalism that we have come to expect from all our Services. It is, of course, aware of what is going on and what reinforcements are coming up behind. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the morale of our troops is very high indeed.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves the thanks and congratulations of the House on the tireless way in which he has striven to achieve a peaceful solution? Is he also aware that the Government fully deserve complete support for any measures that they and our task force commanders consider sensible and feasible? Will he please use whatever channels he can to impress on the Argentines that if we have to repossess the islands by force it will become extremely difficult to contemplate the sort of package that was on offer yesterday?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, if all endeavours to reach a sensible, reasonable and fair settlement by peaceful means fail, nobody is in doubt about what we shall do. We cannot allow the occupation of the islands to continue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it wise for us to have another five minutes on questions. We shall probably have further statements on the issue.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Is it not clear that the recent escalation of military activity has contributed nothing to diplomatic success and that while negotiations continue our paramount concern should be to avoid the loss of more lives, from whatever source? Until it is clear that the present diplomatic initiatives and the new wave of negotiations are completed, any action that would result in the death of anybody should be suspended.

Mr. Pym: I regret to say that I completely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have not the slightest iota


of doubt that the sustained build up of military pressure has had, and is having, its effect. Our securing and protecting of the total exclusion zone is an indispensable element in any possibility of achieving a peaceful result.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: May I congratulate the Government on the skill, resolve and patience that they have demonstrated in handling this immensely difficult dispute? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that every means available to the Government is employed to bring home to world opinion, in its understandable anxiety about a potential increase in armed conflict, that it should not overlook the fact that the Argentine aggressors have continued over the past five weeks blatantly to disregard resolution 502, have sabotaged the heroic efforts of Mr. Haig through his peace proposals, and have now sabotaged the proposals of their Latin American ally, President Belaunde of Peru?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is extremely important. It has not been possible hitherto to give anything but the most elementary outline of what might be the elements of a settlement to bring about a withdrawal, and we have, in a sense, been handicapped, compared with the propaganda effort of the Argentines. Although much of it has been misleading, they have been able to say whatever they like and some countries and people are apt to believe what they say.
I hope that what I have said to the House today, which I will convey to the press in all other countries in a conference that I am to hold when I leave the House, will start to put right what has hitherto been an inevitable and unavoidable omission in what we have been able to say. I think that it is clear after what I have said in the House that we have gone as far as we reasonably could to try to get a settlement. Proposals of more or less the same type, though they were different, have twice been rejected by the Argentines and we shall have to see what response they give to the Secretary-General.
I am conscious of the most important point raised by my hon. Friend and we shall do everything that we can to convey the facts to public opinion in other countries, which is no less important or significant in the conflict than is the opinion of our own country.

Mr. Michael English: What steps have been taken, possibly with North or South American assistance, to overcome the jamming of the BBC service to Argentina?
Secondly, do the right hon. Gentleman's options include the possibility of using article 96 of the United Nations charter? The Prime Minister rejected that on the ground that it would produce only an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, but surely it is a possible advantage that the Security Council is not necessarily bound by such a judgment.

Mr. Pym: We are doing what we can with overseas broadcasts. There are many other channels in the Southern American hemisphere and we are using every channel that we can and doing everything we can to get our message through by those means.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have not ruled out that option. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear in our debate just over a week ago.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not clear that, if we go on as we are, we shall be bending over

backwards so far that we shall fall flat on our backs in seeking to achieve a diplomatic settlement? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Argentine junta will never agree to a settlement in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 502 and that the longer our forces are in the South Atlantic, the greater will be the danger to them? Is it not time that we answered with what has to be done, which is to take the Falkland Islands back by force?

Mr. Pym: It remains to be seen whether the Argentines will fulfil resolution 502. I think that not only the exertion of the various measures that we have taken, but the influence of public opinion in countries all round the world can have an important influence on the Argentines at the present time. It remains to be seen whether they fulfil the resolution, but I assure my hon. Friend that, in the meantime, I intend to stand and to remain upright.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must return to Private Members' business.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House entrusts to your good judgment the time at which questions on statements should be terminated, but may I point out to you that only one non-Privy Councillor on the Labour Benches has been called to ask a question?

Mr. Norman Atkinson: An absolute disgrace.

Mr. Spearing: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear that point of balance in mind when statements are made in future?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Right hon. Members must not be barred from being called merely because they are Privy Councillors.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a distinct and different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit to you a consideration for the future handling of statements and discussions in the House on this grave matter.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was asked from the Opposition Front Bench to forgo the option of bombarding Argentina, he was asked from the Liberal Benches about the supply of Harriers, and he was asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about methods to prevent the jamming of our broadcasts. The answers to those questions could surely be of great value to our adversary.
There are many questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to ask, but we have not asked them because of our fear that the answers, or even the putting of the questions, might give comfort to the Argentine bandits. Therefore, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, might wish to consult both sides of the House on whether we should be willing in future to go into secret session if necessary.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was mentioned by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), may I assure the House that Argentina may take no comfort from me? I fully support my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: I keep for the next occasion a list of those Members who are not called.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Then what has happened in the past four weeks?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not alone in not having been called; others have been trying to be called. I am conscious of the frustration of those who are not called, but we must move on now.

Mr. Atkinson: Disgraceful.

Orders of the Day — Gaming (Amendment) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF THE GAMING ACT 1968

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in schedule 1, page 5, line 41, leave out 'clerk' and insert 'applicant'.
I feel a sense of guilt at taking up the time of the House on such a day when there are other matters to be discussed which are probably of far greater consequence than this rather minor and uncontroversial Bill.
Schedule 1, paragraph 8(2) states:
Not later than fourteen days after the making of any such application,"—
that is, for a billiard, gaming or club licence—
the clerk to the licensing authority shall cause notice of the making of the application to be published by means of an advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the licensing authority's area.
When the Bill was drafted I was not aware that there might be the possibility that in an area such as the City of Westminster, where there are many clubs, the clerk to the licensing authority concerned might find a disproportionate cost falling upon his magistrates court. This is essentially a probing amendment. I had a letter of representation on this clause from the clerk of the Huntingdon, Peterborough and Fenland magistrates courts, which I sent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The clerk to the justices wrote:
We see no reason why the tax payer should bear the cost of advertising applications. In liquor licensing matters this falls upon the applicant and we do not see why it should not do so here.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me on 28 April thanking me for the letter from the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the Justices' Clerks' Society, written also in his capacity as a representative of the magistrates court. My hon. Friend said:
Mr. Booth asked why the taxpayer should bear the cost of advertising applications and not the applicant. By this I assume he refers to the provision in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Bill requiring the clerk to the licensing authority to publish an advertisement in a local newspaper giving notice of an application for renewal of a licence under the Act. In fact it will be the applicant who pays, for the licence fees are set at a level to cover the costs incurred by the licensing authority in carrying out its licensing function. Any additional expenditure incurred as a result of this provision would be taken into account when the fees are reviewed.
That reply satisfies me that it is not the Bill's intention to place any undue burden on the clerks to the licensing authorities or on the taxpayer. However, I want to confirm that the Minister of State is happy with the drafting of this paragraph to the schedule and that the licensing authorities will be recompensed for the additional expenditure that they will have to undertake. This will not be a major problem in the average provincial areas of Britain, but what I did not foresee, on the First and Second Readings of the Bill, which were without debate, was that there would be considerable expenditure for an authority such as the City of Westminster and for licensing authorities in big cities, where there will be many clubs. They will be concerned at the additional amount of expenditure that they will have to find when advertising the applications.
I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he is happy with the drafting of this paragraph and will assure the clerks to magistrates courts and licensing authorities generally that the provision will not cause additional expenditure to fall upon them and that such expenditure as they incur will be recouped via the licensing fees.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) for having considered this matter with such care, and for tabling the amendment, which he frankly described as probing.
The amendment is about an application for the renewal of a gaming licence. Paragraph 13(2) of schedule 2 to the 1968 Act as amended by the Bill reads:
Not later than fourteen days after the making of any such application, the clerk to the licensing authority shall cause notice of the making of the application to be published by means of an advertisement in a newpaper circulating in the licensing authority's area.
The object and effect of my hon. Friend's amendment would be to transfer that responsibility from the clerk to the applicant. There is a drafting point about which I will not weary the House. It has been suggested by the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the Justices' Clerks' Society that the applicant should advertise his own renewal application because the cost will otherwise fall on the taxpayer. In fact, the licence fees are set at a level that will cover the costs incurred by the licensing authority in carrying out its licensing function. Any additional expenditure incurred as a result of this provision would be taken into account when fees were reviewed.
I well understand that the effect of the transfer would be to make one job fewer for busy clerks to the justices. I fully appreciate how great their burdens are. However, I do not think that the House need concern itself unduly with the cost of the advertisements as it can be reflected in the licence fee, which can be adjusted so as to ensure that the cost is met by the applicant.
The proposed amendment would also be undesirable in the context of the renewal procedure set out in the Bill. While the applicant would be required to publish the advertisement within 14 days of making the application, it would be for him to decide, in accordance with paragraph 13(3) of schedule 2 as amended, what period should be allowed for the receipt of objections. While that period may not be less than 14 days, no maximum period is stated. While it can appropriately be left to the clerk to the licensing justices to fix the maximum period, it would be inappropriate to leave it to the applicant, because he could fix the date for, say, a year ahead, in the knowledge that in accordance with another provision of schedule 2 his licence would continue in force until the licensing authority had determined the application. It could not do so until at least seven days after the date for receiving objections had passed. If the applicant failed to advertise his renewal application, whether deliberately or otherwise, that would have the same effect and his licence would continue in force. In other words, the amendment would give the applicant the power, if he were so minded, to extend the duration of his licence of his own volition. That would be undesirable.
I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to explain this aspect of the Bill. I hope that what I have been able to say will reassure my hon. Friend so that he will feel that it is right to withdraw his amendment.

Sir Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough): I understand that my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) tabled the amendment at the request of the Huntingdonshire, Peterborough and Fenland magistrates' courts. It is significant that this request should have come from that part of the world. The House will be aware that communications are not all that they might be in the Fens. Many villages are virtually cut off. They are hard to get to, and sometimes even the local newspaper does not circulate very well.
I support the amendment because I do not see why the burden should be imposed in the way that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State wants it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe has shown considerable parliamentary skill. He was drawn No. 11 in the Ballot, but on only the second day of remaining stages days we find that, thanks to an extremely impressive display of parliamentary skill, my hon. Friend's Bill is first on today's Order Paper, at a very advanced stage, having nearly completed all its parliamentary stages. It is a very impressive performance, and I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill, having seen my hon. Friend achieve such remarkable success.
All the same, I do not see why we should accept the specious arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. The amendment is based on the suggestion put forward by the Huntingdonshire, Peterborough and Fenland magistrates' courts. I understand that the clerk to those justices also has the distinguished position of being chairman of the parliamentary committee of the Justices' Clerks' Society.
We are getting ourselves into a frightful muddle with the number of parliamentary committees, semi-parliamentary committees and all-party committees which now clutter up the Order Paper, and I find my self wondering whether this parliamentary committee is a very weighty body. I am not very skilled in these legal matters, and I should have to be advised about that by others, including my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who has many legal connections. What is the worth of the parliamentary committee to the Justices' Clerks' Society?

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend was good enough to pay tribute to the way in which the Bill had been steered through to this stage. The fact that the Bill, small measure though it is, has found favour with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House is a tribute to the chairman of the parliamentary committee. His drawing to my attention of this item of concern demonstrates that the body is doing a worthwhile job. It has undoubtedly been highly skilled in going through the Bill in great detail.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me right about the weight which should be attached to the parliamentary committee's letter
I am also worried about the second paragraph of the letter asking why the taxpayer should bear the cost of advertising applications. Am I to understand that, unless we accept the amendment, the Bill will put a charge on the taxpayer? If a Private Member's Bill puts such a burden on the taxpayer, I wonder why we allow it to proceed. When drafting a Private Member's Bill, my understanding is that, unless the promoter obtains a special certificate of exemption, he is not allowed to put a charge on the taxpayer. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for


Brigg and Scunthorpe, smelling a dangerous parliamentary area—that of using a Private Member's Bill to raise taxation—thought that the only way to avoid this serious hurdle was to table the amendment.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will discover some reason why he should accept the amendment. If he does not accept it, we may have to consider taking up another 20 minutes of the time of the House by taking the matter to a vote. I should hate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe to lose his Bill because there were not enough hon. Members present for the House to vote on the amendment, so perhaps we shall have an opportunity to assess the strength of support before we take the matter to a vote.
I can see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) is equally worried about this matter, so I shall allow him to pursue it while we assess the number of bodies in the building before deciding our further tactics.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I have no wish to stand in the way of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball), who wishes to assess the body of support for the amendment.
This is an extremely valuable little Bill. I used to be closely concerned with the making of applications for gaming and other ancillary licences. The Magistrates' Association and others who advise the House do very valuable work, especially on this type of administrative Bill. They have done so on this occasion, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) for the trouble that he has taken to pilot the Bill through thus far successfully.
Under this paragraph it is entirely for the applicant to send copies of his application to the relevant parties—the board, the appropriate officer of police, the local authority, and so on. In the circumstances, in my view it is for the applicant to
cause notice of the making of the application to be published by means of an advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the licensing authority's area.
I appreciate the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State about the possibility of the applicant creating a deliberate delay, but that can be taken care of simply by an amendment, if need be, ensuring that the applicant shall cause the notice, with due expedition, to be made and published in the advertisement. Any such amendment would be quite easy to ensure that there was no undue delay in pursuing the application and in the applicant having to cause the application to be published.
If the applicant has to make the application himself, he will of course have to pay for the advertisement. It will fall upon him naturally to do so. The applicant will be quite willing to do that, because it will be a matter of considerable importance to him. It is the applicant who wishes to renew his licence or to register it, as the case may be.
I am not altogether sure about the amendment. I came into the Chamber only at the very beginning of the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, and I was not wholly clear whether there was any real question of principle, other than that of delay, why we

should suddenly amend the Bill to make the clerk to the licensing authority the person who has to publish the application.
To the best of my recollection, if anyone wishes to apply for a betting office or other licence of the type that we are discussing, the duty is imposed on the applicant in every instance to publish his advertisement in a local newspaper and to pay for it. Generally speaking, therefore, it is for the applicant to take all the necessary steps to ensure that his application is made. If in this instance it has to be done with due expedition in the proper manner, in my view, the amendment is on the right lines, even though it may need some further minor amendment to make sure that it is correct.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) was right to draw attention to the fact that possibly there was some burden on the taxpayer. When the amendment was suggested to me originally by the clerk to the justices, I was prompted immediately to table the amendment and to write to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The last thing that I wish to be responsible for is a Private Member's Bill that imposes any additional financial obligation on the taxpayer. It was that great sense of guilt when it was originally brought to my attention by the gentleman to whom we have already referred that made me immediately look at the Bill, write to my right hon. Friend, and then table what at the beginning I thought would merely be a probing amendment. I am satisfied with the response from my hon. Friend, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the intention is not in any way to impose a financial burden on the taxpayer.
Equally, I was most impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), who is a great expert in these matters. He drew attention to the fact that in many examples of licensing in other matters for which the Home Office is responsible, it is the duty of the applicant to make the necessary advertisement. I should not wish to be responsible for ending the excellent relationship that I have been privileged to have with the Home Office, and I am grateful for the great assistance that I have received from that Ofice. I shall withdraw the amendment, but it is, of course, open to my hon. Friends, if they feel that the matter is sufficiently important, and if I have not satisfied them, to express their views in a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I should hate my hon. Friend to mar his brilliant parliamentary performance, but I remind him that his colleague who represents Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) is honourable and learned, and not just honourable.

Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that no disrespect was intended to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West and I thank him for correcting me.

Mr. Mayhew: With the leave of the House, may I be allowed to say that I am not a right hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman had put a Question before the House, and it is my duty to ask if it is the pleasure of the House that the amendment be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
Before I start my speech, may I say that I referred to the Minister of State as "my right hon. Friend" because it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the other Minister of State, who has handled the Bill hitherto, and who wrote to me previously. The problem, of course, will soon be solved when my hon. and learned Friend becomes my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that that time will not be long delayed.
As the Bill received a formal Second Reading, and had only a short Committee stage, it is appropriate, in moving the Third Reading, for me to say briefly what the Bill seeks to do and how I believe that it will be of assistance, particularly to the Gaming Board.
The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Gaming Act 1968 so as to provide more flexible timing arrangements for the licensing of gaming clubs, such as the casinos or bingo clubs, and for the registration for gaming of members' clubs or miners' welfare institutions. There are two stages in obtaining a gaming licence. The first is for persons wishing to become casino or bingo club proprietors, who must obtain a certificate of consent from the Gaming Board. The second stage is the obtaining of a licence from the local licensing authority.
The background is that the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 was based on the theory that anyone should be entitled to run a casino or work in one if that person gave players a fair deal. There were loopholes in the law, and gaming became so profitable for the proprietors that, in a very short time, there were over 1,000 casinos in the country. The industry was being infiltrated by criminals and other undesirable characters, and urgent action was required.
Thus, eight years later, Parliament found it necessary to pass the Gaming Act 1968, which was based on a very different philosophy. Participation in commercial gaming was no longer to be claimed as a right, but was to be a privilege conceded only to those who satisfied the Gaming Board that they could be trusted to observe the letter and the spirit of the law. To that end, the Gaming Act 1968 required that no gaming licence should be issued unless the applicant first held a certificate of consent from the Gaming Board. The issue of the certificates was to be no mere formality. The board was required to give careful consideration to the applicant's suitability, after inquiries into his background of the police and a wide range of other sources. Hon. Members will appreciate that gaming is very much an international affair, and a proportion of applicants for certificates of consent are from overseas or from people who have been concerned with the operation of casinos overseas. As a result, inquiries into the background of applicants may take a considerable time.
This is very much what the Bill is about. The 1968 Act provided that application for a certificate of consent had to be made before the end of October in the year immediately preceding the year in which the relevant licence application was to be made. All applications for licences had to be made in January or February, and licensing applications were then considered at the May licensing sessions.
It was originally thought that it would be an advantage if all the applications were dealt with simultaneously, in that it would enable the Gaming Board to carry out an

effective review of the gaming facilities available in relation to demand at a particular time. In fact, the reverse happened. It caused great congestion in the work of the Gaming Board, which has to consider simultaneously the various applications for certificates of consent and then take an interest in all the licensing applications being heard at the same period of the year all over the country.
The Bill is based largely—in fact, almost wholly—on the Gaming Board's evidence to the Royal Commission on gambling, In its evidence, the Gaming Board said that because of the work load that the present system casts upon the board at one time of the year it sometimes does riot have sufficient time to carry out all the exhaustive inquiries that it would wish to make before the licensing hearing. The Justices' Clerks' Society also recommended that the gaming licensing procedure should be amended to bring it more into line with the procedure for applying for justices' licences under the Licensing Act 1964. The Royal Commission considered those representations and recommended that gaming licensing procedure should be amended accordingly.
The problem is no less now than it was in 1978—some four years ago—when the Gaming Board reported and made this recommendation. The Gaming Board mentioned it again in its report for the year 1981, which was presented last month. It said that it had referred many times to the difficulties created by the fact that, year after year, the vast majority of applications for certificates of consent are not submitted until the last moment—that is, just before the end of October.
Hon. Members will appreciate that that not only adversely affects the amount of the work that the board can do on each individual application, but it also makes it impossible to make the most efficient use of valuable and scarce staff resources. The board therefore welcomed the Bill, one effect of which is to remove the timetable constraints that give rise to those difficulties. I am most grateful to the Gaming Board for saying in its report, which was laid before the House only last week, that it is happy that the Bill is being considered by the house today.
I have spoken at some length about the benefit that these changes will have for the work of the Gaming Board. But the Bill will also benefit those seeking a gaming licence. If, for example, suitable premises for a casino become available in November and a would-be proprietor wishes to apply for a certificate of consent, he will find that he has missed the boat and must wait until October of the following year before he can apply for a licence and, if the application succeeds, until May of the year alter before his application for a gaming licence can be heard.
That is a very long-drawn-out procedure. It will be of great advantage to the industry if, as the Bill provides, application for a certificate of consent can be made at any time, applications for licences or the renewal of licences are heard at four sessions per year and the licensing authority has power to fix additional dates as necessary. A similar timetable would apply to applications for registration under part II of the Act of a miners' club or miners' welfare institute. My constituency in the North of England has many working mens' clubs, and I am sure that that there are many similar clubs in the adjacent town, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball), which I know very well.
For many people, clubland and club life is a feature of daily life. The North of England thrives on clubland. Therefore, while the Bill seeks, by rearranging the


timetable, to ensure that the Gaming Board has sufficient time and resources to consider carefully applications for licences from people who may be rogues, at the other end of the scale it will help people who wish to start clubs in the northern part of the country where clubland is a cultural and social feature of daily life, in that if they miss the boat they will not have to wait a year before their applications can be considered.
The Bill also seeks to do what the House has failed to do for nearly 140 years. It seeks to amend the Gaming and Wagering Act 1845 in respect of billiard licences. In my research into the provisions of that Act, which is still on the statute book, I was grateful to the Library for the considerable assistance that I received and for pointing out that many laws of the land still go back to 1845 and even further.
Under section 10 of the Gaming and Wagering Act 1845, billiard licences may be granted only at an annual licensing session. I had no idea—as I suspect is the case for many hon. Members—until I became interested in the subject, that to operate a billiard table one requires a licence.

Mr. Mayhew: The fee is five shillings.

Mr. Brown: My hon. and learned Friend draws attention to the cost of the licence fee. The total cost referred to in the 1845 Act is, in fact, six shillings. I assure the House that some slight amendment is envisaged. Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill substitutes for section 10 of the 1845 Act the provision that a new billiard licence may be granted or an existing licence transferred at any session held under section 2(3) of the Licensing Act 1964. This will benefit those who, for example, wish to install a pool table and, understandably, do not wish to wait for up to 12 months to obtain the necessary licence.
It has been suggested that the need to license billiard tables is not so great as it was in 1845. That may well be so, but I cannot undertake a major review of the law in this short, uncontroversial Bill. One is always cautious in describing a Bill as uncontroversial. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Cinematograph Bill that we discussed earlier seems uncontroversial but may cause some argument on the details. Nevertheless, I cannot in this Bill undertake a major review of the licensing law.
As the long title makes abundantly clear, the Bill seeks to
Amend the law with respect to the times of year at which applications may be made
It does not deal with broader issues. I did not feel it right, and I suspect that the House would not have been so charitable as it has so far been, if I had sought in the Bill to go into the whole question of gaming policy which is highly controversial and on which every hon. Member would have views. The Bill merely indentifies some areas of the controversial subject of gaming and gambling in which some limited progress may be made, while leaving the policy implications to the Government of the day. As I fear that a private Member's Bill would be unlikely to be able to go too far down the policy road, I have sought to limit the scope of my Bill in that way.
The Bill has one other purpose in relation to billiard licensing, in terms of the fee, which has remained unchanged since 1845. My hon. and learned Friend was

right to say that the fee to the Home Office was originally fixed at five shillings, but there was then an additional shilling
for the petty constable or other peace officer, for serving notices and other services required of him.
Since then, the sum has been converted to decimal currency, so the total cost is now 30p. I shall refrain from seeking the assurance of my hon. and learned Friend that in recent years the petty officer serving the notice has claimed his 5p, as that might cause administrative problems for the Home Office.
The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make provision by order as to the fees payable on the grant or transfer of such licences. I have not sought to lay down what the fee should be. Some of my hon. Friends may regard that as unwise, as one does not know what fee might be set. However, I am confident that so long as my hon. and learned Friend is in charge he will not take undue advantage of the powers given to him to specify the fee that he thinks right. I have been assured that no attempt will be made to calculate the effect of inflation over the past 137 years. If it were, billiard licences might feature prominently in the Budget proposals of my right and learned Friend the Chancellor from year to year. From the informal assurances that I have received, I understand that it is intended to bring the proposed fee into line with somewhat similar licences for minor gaming.
It may be argued that billiard licences should no longer be required, but that is a wider issue outside the scope of my modest Bill. While such licences continue to be required, it is right that they should be more readily obtainable and that the fee should bear some relation to the cost of issuing them.
I have had great support and assistance from the Home Office in the months since the Bill was introduced. Through my hon. and learned Friend, I express my gratitude to all his officials who assisted me with the preparation and with background information for the Bill. I also thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury who assisted me in Committee, for the help and support that they have given. I also thank the spokesmen for all the other major parties represented in the Committee, all of whom gave the Bill their blessing. If there ever have to be negotiations around any table, it should perhaps be a billiard table, as this seems to have created the greatest unanimity in the House this Session.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend should take his cue.

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend suggests, I should take my cue. The Bill has received the support of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and nobody spoke against it in Committee. I hope, therefore that it will now be read the Third time.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) for having taken the trouble to place such a measure before the House. It is a valuable, if small, Bill which largely ends the days of the Brewster sessions, at least for gaming. However, billiard licences were never heard by them. It is right to end those days and to have sessions that are convenient both to the applicants and to the public.
Altering the timetable and giving four sessions a year, plus additional licensing sessions if necessary, is clearly


in accordance with modern administrative convenience both for the public and applicants. I also congratulate the Home Office and I remind it that it is popular when it comes to such measures. It is not always popular, but it is now.
In 1960, I was instrumental in introducing the original provisions of the 1960 Act, inspired by the Conservative Inns of Court Society, then headed by Gilbert Beyfus. We recommended that the gaming laws should be changed and that a simple Act should be introduced to make the chances alike for all players. That was the 1960 Act. I produced the original version on the day that I originally got married, and I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill, which succeeded.
In 1968, Lord Gardiner and the present Lord Chancellor reluctantly agreed that a tough measure should be introduced to ensure that virtually absolute and despotic power should lie in the hands of the Gaming Board when deciding whether to give a certificate of consent. They feared the arrival in Britain of the Mafia and other undesirable elements. Therefore, it became necessary to vet carefully those who sought to engage in gaming. Unfortunately, that was only right. Almost all those who run casinos and gaming establishments get the hug of greed. As a result, if they are not carefully advised, almost all of them get into trouble.
The Home Office must consider carefully not only the number of licences that are to be granted, but whether they achieve the necessary ends. In the past 18 months some of the great companies in this country have unfortunately flagrantly broken the gaming laws and lost their licences. The measure will enable the Gaming Board at any time to consider whether it wishes to grant a new licence.
It is intolerable that all the applications have to be in by October. They are not considered in October, because a certificate of consent from the Gaming Board is a condition precedent on receiving any licence. If an applicant does not get over that hurdle, he will fail. In January and February the applications have to go in. The Gaming Board may give its consent, but the applicant then has to get over the second hurdle of the licensing authority, which has to grant a licence, and that is in April or May. Therefore, one has to consider the position and decide whether to make an application in October.
If an applicant made an application this October, he would have to get all the necessary information to the Gaming Board by July at the latest. It would then have to be vetted by the Gaming Board and the applicant would have to go through all the other troubles in January and February in order to be heard the following May, so that he could open his casino the following October. Therefore, there is a period of 12 to 18 months between the beginning of consultations and the conclusion of the course.
I speak now wearing my tourist hat. The Home Office is popular because it has produced the best gambling clubs anywhere in the world. People come from all over the world to spend millions of pounds of good tourist money in the casinos. If they have a good win, they may spend their money in Sothebys and Christies buying valuable pictures and paintings. The ladies spend their money in Bond Street. One Arab won £1 million in a night at Ladbrokes. It is said that he spent a good deal of it to the benefit of this country, and then, happily, lost the whole £1 million a few days later. Fortunately, he still had money.
Such gambling produces greed. It was sad that Ladbrokes should be caught up in that greed. It followed wealthy punters so that it could prevail on them to bet in the casino. That was wrong and, as a result, Ladbrokes lost its licences. Therefore, almost every casino needs to be set up well, with good money and people of impeccable character behind it. In addition, all casinos need to be monitored and supervised.
Those of us who have advised in these matters have often regretted that we did not advise throughout. We lose about £50 million a year because we no longer have the large sums of money that the various casinos used to make. More recently, the promoter of Les Ambassadeurs—one of the best casinos in the country—died and it was taken over by Mecca, which, of course, has a very good reputation. However, that casino lost its licence because of lack of care about the regulations.
I hope that the Gaming Board will recognise the need to replace both quickly and effectively all those casinos that have fallen by the way. I am sure that it will realise that it is important to do that. It will realise—as the Home Office undoubtedly does—that there is a great deal of money in it for Britain. Those who come to Britain to play in the casinos have a good deal of money. They come from all over the world, but I think in particular of the Germans and Italians, as well as of those from the Middle arid Far East.
We must ensure that our great name is unsullied. No one has suggested that any of the casinos were engaged in cheating the punter. The allegations were of what is crudely called skimming tax or of being unfair in taking business away from competitors. One might call that a rather exuberant sense of private enterprise. Nevertheless, such matters must be straightened out. This small Bill will help, because it will clear the timetable so that all those who wish to operate casinos will be able to do so.
I suppose that billiards includes snooker. A billiard table has to be used for snooker and snooker is the "in" sport. There has been an enormous increase among snooker fans, and there must be a considerable chance of there being more snooker clubs and tables. If so, how remarkably appropriate that my hon. Friend should have examined the provisions of section 10 of the Gaming Act 1845 in order to inform himself of matters that had escaped my attention and to bring the provisions up to date.
I only hope that, in doing so, it will not be brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We should keep this away from his attention in the warm and cosy atmosphere of the Home Office and not allow it out into the woollier and more unkind atmosphere of the Treasury. It might be suggested that, in due course, the provision should be repealed so that people can have snooker and billiards tables without paying any licensing charge. I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to examine that matter.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the law distinguish between a table for snooker and table used for billiards, or are they both classed as a billiard table and subject to the same tax?

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Act mentions only billiard tables. In 1845 people had not learnt about the brilliant future for snooker, which developed in more recent times. The billiard table attracts tax, not the promoter, so snooker would also be caught.
Perhaps the Home Office should examine the matter. It would be good public relations if the Home Office were to say publicly that it would abolish the licensing of billiard and snooker tables altogether. That might be a happy concession before it becomes too expensive to make it.
We have lost much tourism and trading revenue because we have not recognised the need to keep our applications in order and to look after our licensees. We must also recognise that there is clear evidence that the Home Office is helping a private Member to implement the provisions of the Royal Commission on Gaming. The Home Office could do itself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor a power of good by implementing some other provisions of the Royal Commission on Gaming. One of those is crucial, because it would provide much additional tax revenue. At the same time, the Home Office can implement all the other provisions, both for lotteries and gaming, in one measure. For that reason, it may have the Cabinet on its side. The charges are now made under regulations, but they do not prescribe any right for a talliate or 5 per cent. to be collected as against the right to payment. If such a provision were introduced, a substantial sum of money could then be taxed.
A major problem in casinos is that some forms of gambling—indeed, the best—are not played because the casinos cannot recover the losses that are made. Chemin de fer, which is the best of gambling games, is not played in our casinos. Many more people would gamble in Britain, to the benefit of our revenue, if we played it. We cannot play it because of a provision, which I opposed at the time, which the Royal Commission on Gaming recognised was totally unnecessary and which must be altered immediately.
If one becomes a member of a casino, cashes a cheque, for example, for £10,000, and wins that evening, one cannot hand back the money, tear up the cheque and take the profit. That is against the regulations. The result is that no casino will play chemin de fer because it must present the cheques for payment later. There have been many examples of people cashing cheques, winning at the tables, collecting their winnings, and their original cheques not being honoured.
The law permits casinos to sue for the return of money. Unfortunately, the Casino Association of Great Britain has not pressed its members to sue in every instance and to create a blacklist so that those whose cheques are dishonoured cannot gamble again. That matter needs careful examination. The Home Office can play a great part by introducing legislation which will entitle people to cash cheques freely when they enter casinos. It would encourage all casinos to ensure that members have a basic account somewhere. It would enable the casinos to play chemin de fer and baccarat, which would in turn attract foreigners who cannot readily play those games in other countries. With our admirable casino set-up, we could provide revenue for the Treasury and popularity for the Home Office. I have no doubt that the Home Office will recognise that in due course and will give me credit for what I have said today.

Mr. John Farr: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg

and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) on introducing the Bill and on making such rapid progress with a measure that is not monumental but which could well prove to be an important feature of life in Britain when it is enacted, as I trust it will be soon.
This is one of the few Bills that have not had a Second Reading debate. My hon. Friend is lucky that, in its wisdom, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading on the nod. The Bill had only 14 minutes—certainly less than a quarter of an hour—in Standing Committee, which is a tribute to the draftsmen responsible for the architecture of the Bill. I support the flexibility that will be permitted once the Bill is on the statute book. It will allow the Gaming Board for Great Britain to approach the licensing authority and, instead of one licensing period in about the middle of May each year, there will be at least four occasions, spread throughout the year, on which licensing can take place. That was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on gambling which was agreed by the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be foolish to fly in the face of that specialist and knowledgeable advice.
I am not so happy about the fees provisions in the Bill. Clause 2(b) empowers
The Secretary of State to make provision by order as to the fees payable".
That is followed up by schedule 2, which replaces section 10 of the Gaming Act 1845. Subsections (4) and (5) of the proposed new section 10 stipulate that the relevant changes in fees will be made by order.
I am not as trusting of Home Office Ministers as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe. I yield to no one in my admiration of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, but I should not be prepared to give him—certainly not without comment—the carte blanche which the Home Office appears to have been given in clause 2(b), which provides that the fees payable will be laid down and introduced by order. There is no indication in the Bill of the amount of the fees initially or how often they are to be changed. One imagines that whenever they are changed they will move upwards.
Moreover, the Bill does not reveal—this is improper—the amount of consultation, if any, that will take place between those responsible for establishing the initial fees and upping them at mysterious and irregular intervals and those who have to pay the fees. In other facets of life in Britain regular and unhealthy increases in fees by the Home Office have reduced the number of people who hold relevant certificates or licences. In certain areas it has been found to be an impossible burden to continue to pay the fees.

Mr. Michael Brown: Clearly I cannot anticipate what will be in the mind of the Home Office or in the minds of Ministers when the Bill is on the statute book. However, I asked some Home Office officials what they had in mind for licensing fees. They told me that they would regard the licence for billiards, for example, as being similar to the licence permit for the commercial provision of amusements with prizes. Under schedule 3 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 that permit costs £8·50 annually. I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend and his successors will have in mind, but the idea of Home Office officials is the idea that I had in mind when this part of the Bill was being discussed.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I shall come to that point in more detail in a moment.
The sum of £8·50 sounds reasonable. However, my hon. Friend must pin down the Home Office on the amount of times that the £8·50 will be changed. The Home Office is responsible for establishing licence fees in a whole range of areas. Regular, frequent and rapid changes take place, which are often ahead of the high level of inflation. The sum of £8·50, while it sounds eminently reasonable today, could well be into three figures in a few years. My hon. Friend must not laugh. Between 1971 and 1980 some fees for which the Home Office is solely responsible rose by 1,100 per cent. If my hon. Friend applies that 1,100 per cent. in the same nine-year span to £8·50, he will get a nasty shock.
My hon. Friend tabled a sensible amendment about fees but unfortunately withdrew it. His original amendment was that fees would be valid for 10 years. I wish that he had proceeded with it because I am sure that it would have met with the approval of the House.
A fixed fee for 10 years gives an element of stability to the public and those who have the licence. Many of us would think that to license billiards at all in this day and age is out of date. The revenue accruing to the Treasury is not worth the effort of collecting it. Billiards is a harmless occupation that should be enjoyed licence-free. In any event, in several areas there has been a much longer life for licences and only a regular annual review. The driving licence, for example, lasts for life. Once the Home Office has a grip on those fees, whatever the initial level is, there will be at least an annual increase. In a few years the result will be most unpleasant.
An example that will interest the House relates to the Firearms Act 1968. It laid down fees for firearms—that is, weapons such as rifles and shotguns. The House, when discussing the level of fees to be charged for billiard licences, will be interested to hear what has happened to firearms fees between 1971 and 1980. When one appreciates the Home Office policy adopted by successive Governments over that period of less than a decade, any hope of sanity in billiard licence fees disappears altogether. For example, in 1971 the fee for a firearms certificate was only £3·50. In 1980 it had increased to £25, an increase of 614 per cent. The picture for the renewal of a firearms certificate is worse. The fee increased from £2·50 in 1971 to £20 in 1980, an increase of 700 per cent.
Under the powers given to the Home Office in the Firearms Act 1968 in relation to shotgun certificates, there has been a savage increase in the fee way beyond the increase in the cost of living. In 1971 the shotgun certificate fee was £1. In 1980, it had risen to £12, which is an increase of 1,100 per cent. Over the same period, the renewal fee rose from £1 to £8, which is an increase of 700 per cent. I do not know exactly how much the cost of living increased over those nine years, but it certainly did not increase by 1,100 per cent. The Home Office's over-vigorous pricing policy has had a damaging effect on people who use shotguns and rifles in recreational pursuits.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to charge such fees as he may determine by order. Is the provision here the same as that for reviewing the firearms certificate fees and so on?

Mr. Farr: I imagine that it is similar. Firearms certificate fees can be increased only by an order tabled by the Secretary of State. Orders are tabled in such a way that it is difficult to arrest their progress. Objections have been raised, and on more than one occasion—the last occasion was in 1978 or 1979—the Government were defeated. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball), it was not so much a matter of good management as a lucky fluke. The order was brought on fairly late and annulled. That is a rare occurrence and in a properly managed Government such as this one such lucky flukes are unlikely.
The Home Office policy has had a serious effect. Governments of both parties have been vigorous in increasing firearms certificate fees way beyond any loss in the value of the pound or rise in prices. All the statistics show that the number of firearms certificate holders has fallen considerably in the past decade. It is continuing to fall markedly because of the pricing policy of successive Governments, which has savagely and unacceptably curbed the recreational activities of firearms certificate holders.
I draw the attention of the House to the pitfalls in the Bill as it is drafted. I do not know how my hon. Friend will get round it; I do not suppose that he will. If one tries to tie up the Home Office in any way at all, a Bill will not make much progress.

Mr. Michael Brown: As my hon. Friend will be aware, if the House is kind enough to give the Bill a Third Reading, it will still have to go to the House of Lords. One does not know what will happen there but many people will, of course, be as vigilant as my hon. Friend is seeking to be today. Perhaps some of them will seek to table amendments of the kind that my hon. Friend might have tabled on Report had he been aware of the problem.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful again for my hon. Friend's intervention. I would do nothing to prevent or impede the rapid progress of the Bill, but if he were to succeed in having a proper amendment tabled and accepted in the other place—the sort of amendment that ought to be tabled and accepted in both places would be to the effect that initially licences would be granted for 10 years and that after that the fee would be static—he would find that the first of those conditions was anathema to the Home Office. If he were to persist, either directly in this House or through the other place, I am afraid that the Bill would not make any further progress, which would be to the regret of everybody.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) will, on reflection, wish to withdraw his remarks about lucky flukes. He knows that these things happen not by lucky flukes but by extensive organisation and the fact that many Members of Parliament are advised by their constituents how very strongly they feel on the subject. I should hate us to find ourselves in a similar situation in regard to the level of billiard licences.
I think that my hon. Friend was not totally fair to the Home Office—the licensing authority in this case. I do not believe that the Home Secretary goes round looking to see whether he can increase the licence fees for firearms, for circuses, or for the vast number of other things that have


to be licensed. We must be fair to the Home Secretary and to his great Department of State on the subject because, as always, the nigger in the woodpile is the Treasury. The Treasury never asks about lease costs or any other costs. Rather, as with rents, the Treasury thinks it is necessary to add inflation into the cost every year.
The argument that we had over licences has been not about adding inflation into the cost, but about the amount of police time spent in filling in the report or the form for a licence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) said, it is the actual time spent by police constable Plod in going round and inspecting the premises, noting who is on the committee, checking whether those concerned are respectable citizens, and filling in a report before the licence is granted. I do not think that £8·50 will cover much of a policeman's time today. It will cover only about an hour of one policeman's time, let alone his travelling expenses. In some rural areas travel, at 23p a mile, can become very expensive.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that his right hon. Friend will not be bullied on the matter of adding inflation into the licence fee every two years or 18 months or on the costing of police time. There is great unfairness in the costing of police time. It obviously costs less for a police constable to inspect premises and to advise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about a billiard table in a club in a small area of London than for a police constable, faced with vast distances and expensive travelling time, to carry out a similar task in a country area. It is surprising to me that licences are needed for billiard tables in clubs—

Mr. Michael Brown: This was initially a matter of surprise to me. There is, however, a benefit to the police through the power available to them to enter premises where they may suspect that something is not quite right. They may want to visit premises where they have no firm evidence that something is not quite right and ask to see the billiard licence. Upon the discovery that there is no billiard licence, the police might uncover something far more serious that they may have suspected. It is a way of gaining admittance.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I should hate to find myself voting against my hon. Friend's Bill, but the argument that he has just advanced would make me want to do so. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would also take that view. All hon. Members respect the role of the police in maintaining law and order. However, the idea that a policeman can walk in anywhere on any pretext is alien. I would never accept it. I am certain that it would not happen in Lincolnshire. It must be remembered that my hon. Friend represents a Humberside constituency. I hope that, on reflection, he will recognise that he has made an error and will withdraw his argument.
I was interested to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe about the research he has undertaken into the Bill and into the Gaming Act 1845. I should like to know whether he found a research assistant essential. The problem of research assistants is serious. The fact that my hon. Friend was able to carry out his own research in the House of Commons Library without employing a research assistant, bearing in mind that he was once a member of this dangerous tribe, is

important. I intend to write to the Chairman of the Services Committee to draw attention to the point that has arisen in the debate.
Before the debate, I attempted to count the number of bodies in the House. I was seriously considering calling a Division. I did not wish my hon. Friend's Bill to fail because there were not 40 Members present to vote. If one counts the number of people in the Library today, one cannot be certain, without knowing all hon. Members by sight, that one is counting hon. Members. This is a serious problem. There are research assistants floating around in the House of Commons Library on a Friday morning. It makes management of the House very difficult.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We should be grateful that hon. Members are still allowed into the Library. Since I have been a Member, 40 per cent. of the space has been taken away from hon. Members by people in the service of the House who could carry out their duties elsewhere.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I must not go down that road. One cannot help overhearing the telephone conversations of women in the Library who are part of the additional staff. Much of their conversation could be conducted by letter. In many cases, it is irrelevant to immediate research. I do not object so much to servants of the House. I object to the ill-disciplined attitude of research assistants employed by hon. Members. It is unacceptable that they should be occupying the Library when the House is sitting. I understand that there is another Library across the street in the old Norman Shaw building—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the excellent research on the Gaming Act 1845, which is relevant to the Bill, was carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe without the help of a research assistant.

Mr. Michael Brown: I was helped considerably by the Home Office. I have a research assistant, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong for our assistants to use the Library. The Home Office gave me far more help than a research assistant could ever provide.
My research assistant gave me limited assistance. He used the facilities in the Norman Shaw building, without, I hope, troubling other hon. Members. I feel that there is an obligation on us to instruct our research assistants not to be seen or heard. However, I should like to put on record the fact that my assistant gave me some limited help, though the bulk of assistance came from the Home Office.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I shall not pursue that point further. However, I hope that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that our comments on the matter will help the Services Committee.
I understand that if a person wishes to apply for a licence to run a pub he has to go to the annual Brewster sessions at the magistrates' court. The argument for the Bill is that the licensing of gaming establishments should take place at the same time. I cannot believe that we will ever have as many gaming establishments as we have public houses and, as all public house licences can be dealt with at one Brewster sessions, I am not sure that the Bill is necessary. I hope that the magistrates will not demand


that, because there are thousands of public houses in this country, the consideration of their licences should be spread over four or five sessions a year.
There are occasions, particularly in modern society, when changes in buildings and in the character of villages make it necessary for residents to object to a public house licence. Often the problem is noise—amplified music, car doors being slammed late at night, and so on. When such nuisances are caused, it is right that residents should have the safeguard of being able to object to liquor licences being granted
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) laughs, but I suspect that he would object to liquor licences on any occasion. I would not want that to happen. I am not sure of your attitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that you agree with me that it would be wrong to withdraw the right to object to the licensing of a public house. Local residents know that if there has been trouble from a public house, it is possible to seek the protection of the magistrates every year just after Christmas. If magistrates can manage all that work on one occasion, there should be no need for more sessions. Once a year is enough.
I accept that the licensing of gaming establishments is complicated. We must let the Bill go through. However, I give a severe warning to the Home Office that it should not allow any changes in other licensing laws or the Brewster sessions.

1 pm

Mr. Mayhew: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) on what he has achieved in his success in the ballot and on the way in which he has successfully steered the Bill through its Second Reading and Committee stages. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) drew attention to the achievement, pointing out that my hon. Friend was eleventh in the Ballot. It only goes to show that the fact that one is an eleventh man does not prevent one from scoring a great many runs, provided one has a suitable partner. I am grateful for what he said about the Home Office. Perhaps to the surprise of many hon. Members who have seen one or other of the partnership take the Floor in the past, between us we have achieved a great deal. Although my hon. Friend was generous in his thanks to Home Office officials—for which I am grateful—he deserves the bulk of the credit.
Much has been said about the Home Office being a cosy and popular institution when it is dealing with gaming and licensing matters. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) spoke of it in those unfamiliar but welcome terms. He has courteously explained to me why he cannot be in his place at the moment. He drew attention to the Gaming Board's need to be able to replace quickly, for example, the casinos that have lost their licences. He gave one or two unhappy examples where that had happened.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to break the mould—if I may use that expression today—that has so long given shape to licensing arrangements under the Gaming Act, forcing magistrates to deal with a bulk of licensing applications once a year. It has created unnecessary congestion in their lists and has had damaging effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that they have to cope with that when they are licensing public houses. I confirmed that the licensing of public houses

takes place at special sessions but with the difference that they are not limited to once a year. They take place generally four times a year and therefore the same problems do not arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was concerned about fees assessment. He feared that they would be assessed at too high a level and increased more than would be reasonable. However, I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no interest in fixing licence fees for any of the multifarious activities that he is obliged by Parliament to licence at anything more than is reasonably required. In this instance they will be fixed broadly, according to the cost involved in issuing the licence. The fee will probably be comparable to that for the permit for commercial provision of amusements with prizes, which at present is £8·50. The fees are set in statutory instruments which must be laid before the House and they are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I know too much about the capabilities and skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough to suppose that it was simply a lucky fluke, or even a brilliant fluke, that led to the defeat of the firearms order under the last Administration. That episode established that if it is so minded the House can effectively bring its mind to bear upon a matter when the Government produces, under the negative resolution procedure, a proposal with which it disagrees.
First, my right hon. Friend has not the slightest intention of fixing fees at an unreasonable rate, nor has he any interest in doing so. Secondly, the House had the effective procedure which I have endeavoured to describe.
To some extent we are the prisoners of history. So long as my right hon. Friend is required to license any activity, premises, thing, animal or person he should have power readily to ensure that the level of licence fee is sensible and keeps pace with the change in the value of money. It is riot a very impressive monument to our legislative skill that for the past 137 years the fee for billiard premises has remained the same. Therefore, although there may be a question whether billiard tables should be licensed, that is not a matter which, without comprehensive legislation, can be looked at. However, although billiard licences are not required in pubs—in what we call, colloquially, licensed premises—or in members' clubs, they are required for public billiard tables, of which there are a few.
The reason for that is quite interesting. Section 10 of the 1845 Act applies to public billiard tables only, but a fully licensed liquor public house is exempt from billiard licensing under section 11 of the Act. I acknowledge the perspicacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe in discovering this curious anachronism and anomaly and in taking the opportunity to bring up-to-date and enable to be kept up-to-date the licence fees for this activity.
For the purposes of gaming, to which part II of the Gaming Act 1968 applies, there are detailed provisions in schedule 2 for the licensing of premises, clubs run commercially as casinos or bingo clubs, in Great Britain and in schedule 3 for the registration of members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes in England and Wales. One of the main features of those procedures is that applications for the grant of renewal of licences arid registrations have to be dealt with at a particular time of year. In general, such applications must be made in January or February, and hearings take place or begin in May.
There is a separate procedure in schedule 4 to the Act for the registration of clubs and institutes in Scotland, where applications for registration may be made at any time. Originally there were thought to be advantages in concentrating attention on all the gaming clubs at one session. The 1968 Act imposes on the Gaming Board for Great Britain, amongst other things, the duty of keeping under review gaming facilities provided by licensed and registered premises.
The procedures in schedules 2 and 3 of the Act were intended to enable the Gaming Board to carry out an effective review at a given time of such facilities. Now that the licensing and registration system has been in operation for some years, the Gaming Board is in a position to review the situation on a continuing basis.
It is also evident that the procedures can have the effect of causing congestion, as all the applications come forward at the same time. The congestion occurs not so much in the consideration of the applications by the several bodies acting as licensing authorities as in the work of the Gaming Board, which has an interest in every application. In order to relieve the congestion, if only gradually, it is proposed to relax the requirements of schedules 2 and 3 to the 1968 Act so that applications may be processed more frequently.
I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West about the need that was perceived for the Gaming Board to have really effective powers of surveillance of those who were applicants for licences. It is very important that in the exercise of those powers the board should not be unduly rushed.
The main aim of the Bill is to make changes in the timing provisions of the relevant procedures to allow applications to be made at any time. Those changes will make it necessary to provide for the gaming licensing authorities to hold several sessions in each year for considering and determining applications made to them. As a consequence of the granting of applications at different times of the year there will be need to be some amendment of the provisions relating to the renewal and duration of licences and registrations, although the duration of an existing licence or registration is not to be affected.
The opportunity is also being taken to make a similar sort of change in the procedure for granting billiard licences. The granting of these licences takes place at one session only in the year. This has given rise to complaints that a person in the entertainments business who wants to install a pool table for public use may, by virtue of an Act dating back to 1845, have to wait many months before he can obtain a licence authorising its use. There seems to be no reason for the provisions to be so restrictive, and my right hon. Friend wisely proposes to provide for several sessions a year at which licences can be granted. It is also proposed to make different provision in respect of the fees payable for licences, which have not been varied since 1845.
May I say, in parenthesis, that I would not approve—nor, I am sure, would my right hon. Friend—of use being made by police or any other officer of the right to inspect a billiard licence for quite unconnected purposes. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe will accept that one

must not use powers granted for one purpose for other purposes, although those other purposes are perfectly proper in themselves.

Mr. Michael Brown: I wholly accept the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends and by the Minister. Perhaps the person who does not have a billiard licence may well be the type of person, having not gone through these procedures, who is more likely to have broken the law on other matters. Therefore, I totally withdraw the implication of what I said earlier.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend acts with characteristic firmness and generosity, and I do not want to make a meal of what was a momentary intervention. We in this House have always been very careful and jealous of the rights of entry that we grant to the police, and so on, and we do not want to depart from those standards.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that the flexibility that the Bill will provide in the timetable of the licensing year will help both the Gaming Board and the gaming industry, and that it was recommended by the Justices Clerks' Society. The changes also have the support of the Magistrates' Association, which has also advocated them. The work of the licensing courts, under the existing arrangements, starts from the beginning of the year and reaches a peak in about April or May. It will assist both the licensing justices and the staff of the courts if the work can be more evenly spread through the year.
My hon. Friend also said that the more flexible timetable will be available not only to casinos and bingo halls, but to members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes which apply for registration for gaming purposes under part II of the Gaming Act. Registration of such clubs is usually for the purpose of playing bingo. It is fair to say that we have not been pressed to relax the timetable for the registration of clubs, probably because many of them prefer to rely on sections 40 and 41 of the Gaming Act 1968 to cover bingo playing for low stakes. Section 42 of the Act, as amended by the Gaming (Small Charges) (Amndt.) Order 1981, provides that the maximum daily charge which may be made in clubs and miners' welfare institutes in respect of a person taking part in games of equal chance, except bridge and whist, shall be 15p. Many clubs seem to operate with this small charge, rather than seeking registration for gaming on a larger scale.
Clubs and institutes also make use of section 41 of the Gaming Act 1968, which allows gaming and entertainments not held for private gain, provided that the entrance fee or stake, which was increased by an order in 1981, does not exceed £1·50 per person. The number of clubs which will benefit from the relaxation of the registration timetable may not be large. On 30 June 1981, 814 such clubs were registered in England and Wales and 53 in Scotland. The initial grant of registration lasts for one year, but renewals may be for any number of years up to 10. Thus the annual number of applications made by these clubs is not large. All the same, there seems no reason why these registered clubs should have to adhere to a stricter timetable than that now proposed for casinos and bingo clubs. Thus, my hon. Friend's Bill will benefit them, too.
My hon. Friend said that time is the essence of the Bill. There is another aspect of timing that he did not mention. Clause 3(2) of the Bill provides that
The provisions of this Act come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.


There are good reasons for not introducing timetable changes of this nature overnight, so the two-month period is wisely specified.
As my hon. Friend has explained, the licensing year really gets under way in October, which is the last month in which applications for certificates of consent can be made. It is, therefore, highly desirable that the Bill should pass through all its stages before the Summer Recess so that it will come into force before October.
I therefore commend the Bill to the House and express the hope that its further passage will be both smooth and speedy, as I believe that the initiative and parliamentary skill of my hon. Friend as well as the inherent merits of the Bill deserve nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Firearms Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

CONTROL OF IMITATION FIREARMS READILY CONVERTIBLE INTO FIREARMS TO WHICH SECTION I OF THE 1968 ACT APPLIES

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
';and
(c) for the definition of imitation firearm in section 57(4) there shall be substituted the following:—
imitation firearm" means any article so fashioned as to present the general appearance of a hand or shoulder firearm.".'
The amendment relates to the definition of "imitation firearm". The Bill as drafted, for which we are most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), contains no definition of the words "imitation firearm". I have no doubt that for this purpose my hon. Friend relies on the definition in section 57(4)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. The amendment seeks to replace that definition, which I believe is out of date. The definition in the 1968 Act provides that
'imitation firearm means any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm (other than such a weapon as is mentioned in section 5(1)(b) of this Act) whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile".
To have any application in 1982, that definition must be considerably revised. I do not know, although I am sure that my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State do know, where it originally came from. As the 1968 Act was merely a consolidation measure the definition may well come from the Firearms Act 1937.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend. The definition to which he refers gives statutory effect to a decision in the case of Crown v. Debreli.

Mr. Farr: That confirms my worst suspicions. At any rate, I prefer my own brief definition in amendment No. 3, which I believe contains all that the House needs to know today.
I fail to see how the bracketed exception in the 1968 definition has any application today. Section 57(4)(b) states:
(other than such a weapon as is mentioned in section 5(1)(b) of this Act)".
However, section 5 (1)(b), refers to
any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing".
The House will be aware that section 5 of the 1968 Act dealt with the prohibition of certain weapons and the control of arms traffic. In the words of the 1968 Act, they are "Defence Council" matters. In today's phraseology, they would rightly be Ministry of Defence matters.
I wonder whether the exclusion of section 5(1)(b) is necessary. Long ago, when the measure was framed, defensive personal protection weapons using gas and ammonia—which are now freely sold and readily available for self-defence—were not around. Indeed, ladies often carry such weapons in their handbags. My fragile attempt to improve the definition of "imitation firearm" is perhaps preferable to that in the parent Act, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) speaks about firearms, the House is wise to listen. Few hon. Members have more experience of legislation in this area, which he has made his own.
My hon. Friend prepared the Bill with the indispensable assistance of the Home Office. I carefully noted my hon. Friend's previous attempts to deal with this matter. Therefore, in commenting on anything that he has said I am conscious that I am the amateur and he is the professional. My hon. Friend said that the definition might be out of date. I have taken careful advice on that point. The advice that I have received, which I believe to be right, is that if we were to accept his amendment, it would restrict the Bill in an undesirable way.
Section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 defines an imitation firearm as
any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm (other than a weapon as is mentioned in section 5(1)(b) of this Act)".
Those are the parentheses to which my hon. Friend referred. The Act applies to an imitation weapon.
whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile".
The reason for defining "imitation firearm" in the 1968 Act was for the purposes of the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of that Act, which makes it an offence to use a firearm or imitation firearm with criminal intent. That is the crucial point. By virtue of section 57(4) all articles resembling pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and machine guns would fall within the definition of imitation firearms. Only items that resembled prohibited weapons designed or adapted for the discharge of noxious liquid or any other thing, as defined in section 55(1)(b), are excluded.
I apologise to the House if that is a somewhat technical exegesis, but it brings me to the heart of my hon. Friend's amendment. The definition of "imitation firearm" in the Bill relies upon section 57(4). It embraces all sorts of devices that look like firearms. The Bill applies to an imitation if it satisfies the two tests in clause 1(a) and (b). The first test is whether the imitation weapon
has the appearance of being a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act … applies.
Secondly, is it
so constructed or adapted as to be readily convertible into a firearm to which that section applies"?
That is the way in which the Bill is drawn. I shall come to that point; not being a lawyer, I must keep my train of thought on a single line.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the part of clause 1(b) that contains the test of "readily convertible". It would clarify my understanding of the Bill if my hon. Friend could tell me why he believed it necessary to include that test. As I understand the common law, a weapon is to be treated as a firearm if it is lethal and if it is capable of causing injury, irrespective of the maker's intentions. For example, dummy revolvers have been bored out, and weapons not designed as firearms have been treated as such for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1968. If that is the case, I do not understand what my hon. Friend is about.

Mr. Griffiths: I can tell my hon. Friend what I am about. The Bill tries to deal with the confusion that exists in the law because different judgments have been given due to different interpretations of what an imitation firearm

capable of becoming a real firearm is. The main thrust of my hon. Friend's point will be dealt with when we come to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 or on Third Reading.
Perhaps I may return to amendment No. 3, although I do not wish to evade the point that has just been made. The effect of my hon. Friend's amendment would seem to limit the scope of the Bill by confining its application to imitations that resemble only hand or shoulder firearms. It appears to exclude, for example, imitations of automatic weapons which might be fired from the hip—for example, Tommy guns and Sten guns. I am not aware—neither, I believe are the police or the Home Office—that the ready convertibility of those types of devices presents much of a problem. In other words, we do not know whether they are convertible. However, it would be a pity if the Bill were to exclude imitations of weapons that can be fired from the hip. To that extent, the amendment is restrictive.

Mr. Farr: It would be wrong and improper of my hon. Friend, with his immense knowledge, and wrong of me, with my smattering of pidgin English, as it were, to descend into a technical discussion. However, I think that I am right in saying that a Thompson machine gun has a stock. If it has a stock, the gun is generally designed for use from the shoulder or thereabouts.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not wish to bandy technical knowledge with my hon. Friend. I readily concede that he has studied the detail of firearms much more closely than I have. However, I am advised that if the definition that he has suggested is adopted, it will confine the Bill to firearms which have the general appearance of a hand or shoulder firearm and will not cover technically imitation firearms that can be fired from the hip. I understand that such weapons do not have a stock, but require to be discharged from the shoulder.
As the amendment would be restrictive and would preempt any future development that might take place, I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to accept the Bill as it stands and will not press his amendment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hesitate to become involved in a dispute between my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and Harborough (Mr. Farr), who have obviously given a great deal of thought to the meaning of "firearm". However, there is a useful compromise between the positions adopted by my hon. Friends. An additional advantage in the suggestion that I shall make is that there is much to be said for uniformity and consistency in statutory definitions.
Another statutory definition of "imitation firearm" is to be found in section 10 of the Theft Act 1968, which provides that an imitation firearm
means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not".
I think that that meets the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and does not fall foul of the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
If it is desirable—I think that it probably is—to apply a somewhat wider statutory definition to "imitation firearm" than that which is presently contemplated in the Bill, which harks back to the principal Act of 1968, I respectfully suggest that it might be desirable to consider section 10 of the Theft Act 1968 with a view to adopting


that statutory definition. I appreciate that that matter is not before the House now, but it could be taken up in another place.
Bearing that in mind, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough may feel that he does not wish to press the amendment to a Division.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The effect of the proposed amendment is to further restrict or alter the types of imitation firearms to which the Bill applies, by changing the definition of an imitation firearm contained in section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 for the purposes of the Bill. The Bill would be further restricted in its application because the criteria in clause 1(1), which refers to an imitation firearm having the appearance of a section 1 firearm and being readily convertible, could be applied only to an imitation of a hand or shoulder firearm.
I need not take up the time of the House for long because I believe that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said about the effect of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was entirely correct. As drafted, the Bill applies to imitations as defined in the 1968 Act, provided that they have the appearance of a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies, and can be readily converted into such a firearm.
Section 1 firearms are those requiring a firearms certificate. Therefore, ordinary air weapons or shotguns are not included. However, the Bill would include automatic weapons because that follows from the definition of firearms in. section 57 of the 1968 Act.
The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough seeks to narrow the definition of an imitation firearm. The amendment refers to any article
so fashioned as to present the general appearance of a hand or shoulder firearm.
Although that concept of similarity is differently framed from section 57(4) of the 1968 Act, the effect seems to be the same. I do not doubt that it is intended to be the same.
Therefore, in practice, the main result of the amendment would be to exclude from the Bill imitations of firearms that were not hand or shoulder firearms. That might include imitations of some automatic weapons that are fired from the hip, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said. Although my Department and I are not aware of any instances where such imitations have been converted to fire live ammunition either automatically or single shot, there is no logical reason why they should be excluded from the scope of the Bill, assuming that that is the intention of the amendment.
I now turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I should have thought that as a matter of general practice and principle it is probably wise, in view of the relatively modest aims of a Bill of this nature—none the less important, but relatively modest in scope—to stick to a definition that is already in place in the statute book and which is in the general context with which the amending Bill is designed to deal and upon which it is designed to operate.
There is little practical difference between the definitions in the Firearms Act 1963 and the Theft Act 1968, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham alluded. The Bill is drafted to use the Firearms Act definition because its structure is related to that Act as

being the principal Act. It is wise to stick to one definition wherever possible when one is dealing with a relatively modest modification of the law relating to a particular activity or the use that is made of a particular thing or class of things.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The definition section in the Firearms Act 1968 gives a narrower meaning to the term "imitation firearm" than the relevant section in the Theft Act. If we are introducing legislation to deal with imitation firearms, would it not be wise to give the broader rather than the narrower definition?

Mr. Mayhew: The scope of the Bill is limited to weapons that can be readily converted to discharge shot. My hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill will doubtless wish to consider whether in another place that suggestion might be adopted.
I am satisfied that there is an important and desirable purpose in the Bill. It is not desirable to exclude from the Bill's ambit imitation weapons that are none the less firearms according to the normal meaning and understanding of the word merely because they do not have the general appearance of a hand or shoulder firearm.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for their advice. I was seeking to bring up to date the derivations of the 1968 Act, but I do not wish to impede the Bill's progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 16, after 'special', insert 'engineering'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
`(b) the work of conversion does not require the use of the specialised tools of a gunsmith'.

Mr. Farr: The purpose of the amendments is to have a little more exactitude in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6). Amendment No. 1 is an improvement on the constitution of subsection (6)(a). We should not introduce legislation that is not exact and should seize with alacrity the opportunity to be more exact. For example, subsection (6)(a) provides that the imitation firearm
can be so converted without any special skill".
It could be skill in jam making or in a dozen different arts or crafts. I can see no reason for not including the word "engineering", as proposed in my amendment. It would give the Bill a little more exactitude and precision.
In amendment No. 2 I am proposing that subsection (6) (b) should be replaced by what I would modestly describe as simpler and more concise wording. Subsection (6)(b) provides that
the work involved in converting it does not require equipment or tools other than such as are in common use by persons carrying out works of construction and maintenance in their own homes.
If one had a hammer, a chisel or a screwdriver, one would fall within the ambit of subsection (6)(b).
1.45 pm
I hope that the House will seize the opportunity to be a little more precise and to define exactly the offence that we are seeking to restrict or reduce. My amendment refers specifically to the specialised tools of a gunsmith, and I


suggest that that is much more satisfactory than bringing within the ambit of the Bill every Tom, Dick or Harry—man or boy—with a hammer and chisel at home.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for tabling his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity for debating the rather important provisions of subsection (6). It also gives me an opportunity of expressing my anxiety about the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to apply the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 to those imitation firearms which are readily convertible into firearms. If the provisions of subsection (6) are too narrowly drawn, we may find, rather bizarrely, that weapons or imitation firearms which already run foul of the Firearms Act 1968 are lawful. Therefore, my fear is that its effect will be to render lawful what is at present unlawful. If I am right, that is a fundamental objection to the Bill.
From the definition of "firearms" in the Firearms Act 1968 and from the various judicial interpretations placed upon the word, it can be seen at once that a host of imitation weapons—which are made as imitations but which are capable of being made to fire a lethal projectile—have been treated as firearms for the purposes of the 1968 Act with the consequence that all the regulations already contained in the 1968 Act apply to them.
I shall perhaps be forgiven if I cite a number of examples. Treated as firearms under the 1968 legislation have been a signal pistol capable of killing at short range, a double-barrelled pistol with holes bored in the side of the barrels if the holes could be filled so as to make it effective with live ammunition, a starting pistol capable of discharging bullets if the barrel was drilled or partly drilled and, perhaps most significantly of all, a dummy revolver capable of conversion by drilling into a weapon capable of killing a man at a range of 5 ft. Over many years, the judges have treated as firearms weapons that, although not intended to be firearms, are capable of being converted into firearms.
The 1968 Act, as it has been defined by the judges, has a very broad application to imitation weapons that are capable of being turned into readily firable weapons. That is the existing law. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is rightly concerned about the fact that there are imitation firearms on the market that are readily capable of conversion into lethal weapons. It is towards that mischief that his Bill is directed. What he has done, I suggest, is to narrow the class of weapons to which the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 apply. Clause 1(6) of the Bill provides:
For the purposes of this section an imitation firearm shall be regarded as readily convertible into a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies if"—
and there then follow two rather tightly drawn paragraphs. Those paragraphs are much more tightly drawn than the existing common law interpretation of the 1968 Act. If the Bill becomes law in its present form, and particularly if subsection (6) is not thoroughly redrafted, the effect will be that the Bill will govern the application of the 1968 Act on imitation weapons. The curious result is that the 1968 Act will apply to a smaller class of weaponry than if we leave well alone.
The amendment is of great importance. It goes to the essential definition. If I am right, as I think I am, in supposing that the definition gives to the phrase "an imitation firearm" a meaning narrower than that which the judges have applied in previous cases that spring from the 1968 Act, this House is doing something that is extremely unwise and precisely contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and myself wish to achieve.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I always listen with the greatest care and attention to the legal commentaries of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He and his family have always impressed me with their deep knowledge of the law, particularly as regards the application of the common law.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will agree that we shall have to look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said before the Bill goes to another place. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give him an immediate undertaking, but he has raised a matter of considerable interest, as he did on the previous amendment. I confess that I was less impressed by his comments on the previous amendment, but I shall look carefully at what he has said.
However, even as a layman, I am entitled to say that the interpretations placed by the courts on the 1968 Act have not been unanimous or consistent. Indeed, one of the reasons why I introduced the Bill was that courts have arrived at different conclusions about the application of the 1968 Act in a number of cases.
Let me give two examples, both of which may be known to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. The first concerns a London man who was arrested not long ago while carrying an imitation magnum revolver of the type used by the American police. He had it in a shoulder holster hidden under his coat.
I understand that the man was observed in a restaurant at a time when there had been some terrorist activities in London. The fact was duly reported to the police, who followed him and subsequently arrested him. They discovered that the imitation magnum revolver was made in Japan and unquestionably could have been converted into a firearm, but when the case was brought before the courts—

Mr. Hogg: What sort of courts?

Mr. Griffiths: I believe that it was a Crown court. I understand that the remarks that I am about to quote were made by a judge and not by a magistrate.
The judge ordered the jury to bring in a not guilty verdict and said in his final statement:
It seems wrong to convict Mr. Lamberg when any of us can go and buy such a gun from dealers who do not need a licence. Perhaps the Home Office might take a long look at this situation.
An exactly contrary case involved an illegal immigrant who was convicted for possession of a replica gun on the ground that it could be transformed into a real one. At the end of the trial, the magistrates asked the chief police witness:
Why are such guns available if possession is restricted by the Firearms Act?
That is the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. The police officer replied, not unreasonably, as police officers are inclined to do:
This remains a mystery.
The defence counsel said:


This is a purely technical offence. There are thousands of persons in London who could be arrested for having these guns, including one of my colleagues.
He then pointed to a QC who was attending the case. The magistrate immediately told that QC that he had better get rid of the gun.
Subsequently, The Guardian reported:
The barrister, who wishes to remain anonymous,"—
hardly surprisingly—
said that he would have advised a not guilty plea… This gun does not fall under the Firearms Act. It is incapable of adaptation by an amateur.
Those are two cases where the courts arrived at two different conclusions based on the Firearms Act 1968. Therefore, with respect to my hon. Friend, as being far more learned in the law than I am, I cannot agree with the principal contention that I understood him to be making, namely, that the judiciary uses the existing Firearms Act consistently. It does not. The Bill will help to clear up that type of anomaly.

2 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I would not try to pretend that the judiciary had been entirely consistent. The main thrust of my argument is that subsection (6) applies the 1968 Act to a small category of imitation firearms, whereas the existing law, as it has been interpreted, applies the 1968 Act to a much wider category. My hon. Friend should think about that with a view to altering the definition section of the 1968 Act as it applies to subsection (6).

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend will have heard me give that assurance at the beginning of my remarks. However, I thought that I was entitled to point out, in response to his remarks, that consistency has not been the hallmark of judicial interpretation in this matter.
I turn to the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Given the necessary expertise and equipment, virtually any imitation firearm, including many toys, can be converted to fire live amunition. A piece of pipe can be converted to fire live ammunition. However, the Bill is aimed at catching only those imitation firearms that could be converted by persons who do not possess a great deal of expertise or equipment. That is the basis of the term "readily convertible" which I have included in clause 1(1)(b).
In his sharp-eyed way, my hon. Friend referred to the case of any Tom, Dick or Harry who had a hammer and a screwdriver. That is exactly the sort of person that I wish to catch because the Bill is aimed at preventing the mischief caused by the availability of imitation firearms to precisely the kind of thug and criminal who could not possibly get a gun licence legitimately and who frequently cannot afford, or will not afford, a gun on the black market. At the moment, the difficulty is that many imitation firearms get into the hands of people because they can be purchased for £30 or £40. They can then be readily converted by any Tom, Dick or Harry with a hammer and screwdriver into a lethal weapon. The problem is not so much created by the highly sophisticated gunsmith—I have no doubt that there are other ways of catching him. It is the amateur we are after because it is he who more and more is obtaining these noxious things and using them in the commission of crime.
The provisions that my hon. Friend is seeking to amend were designed precisely to support that approach by embodying in statutory form the concept of do-it-yourself.

I am not sure whether the do-it-yourself concept has previously been embodied in statutory form, but if it has not, it should have been. Do-it-yourself is a major industry these days.
I assure my hon. Friends that the form of words that appears in the Bill was given the most careful consideration by parliamentary counsel. I cannot claim authorship. I have to say that it was authorship that came after a very detailed examination of the matter by learned counsel.
If the first of my hon. Friend's amendments were adopted, it would bring within the scope of ready convertibility imitation firearms that could be converted by persons who had special skill in the construction or adaptation of firearms, other than engineering skill. That is the drive of the amendment.
Although it is unlikely, I ask my hon. Friend to accept that it is conceivable that an imitation firearm could be converted to fire live ammunition by a person who had some such skill. If there were such imitation firearms, I should not regard them as being readily convertible simply because they fell outside the category of imitation firearms which were convertible only by persons possessing normal do-it-yourself ability.
All that I can say about the amendment, therefore, is that because any imitation firearm could in the right hands—perhaps I should say the "wrong" hands—be converted to fire live ammunition, the majority of conversions would require considerable expertise and in some cases specialised equipment.
Let me make these simple points quite clear. By "conversion"—I do not mean any evangelical or religious conversion obviously—I am talking about that conversion which is within the capability of people who are not gunsmiths and do not have any special skill in this kind of work and who only need to make use of tools and equipment which are readily available—the "Tom, Dick and Harry" case—to turn the imitation into a lethal weapon.
I should also make it clear that the words in paragraph (b) will need to be applied to the circumstances of each case, first by the police and ultimately by the courts. Whether a device is caught by the definition will be a matter of fact for the court to decide, and obviously expert witnesses will have to be available to the court.
My hon. Friend's amendments would have the effect of widening the scope of what might be described as "readily convertible". My view, for what it is worth, is that an imitation firearm which can be converted only by using some special skill or equipment should not be regarded as being readily convertible.
In the case of the first amendment, therefore, conversions that might require some special skill in the construction and adaptation of firearms but not a skill that was regarded as engineering would still be regarded as meeting the criterion of ready convertibility. I do not believe that that would be either desirable or helpful to the Bill.
The second amendment would mean that imitation firearms that could be converted only by using specialised tools other than the tools of a gunsmith would still be held to be readily convertible. No doubt there would be considerable debate about what fell within the definition of the specialised tools of a gunsmith. I could imagine courts going on for ever about what exactly the specialised equipment of a gunsmith amounted to.
Although I have given careful thought to what my hon. Friend proposes in his amendments, I hope that he will accept that they would not materially assist what the Bill is designed to do and what they could lead to a great deal of ratiocination in the courts about what "engineering" and a gunsmith's equipment amounted to.

Mr. Mayhew: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Minister for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the sponsor of the Bill, says about the two amendments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It will not help if I repeat what he has said in a slightly different form.
However, I want to comment on the interesting matter raised by my hon. Friend the Minister for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, the decisions of the courts in the interpretation of the definition in the 1968 Act have not all been one way. What seemed to us an important consideration when we sought to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was to have in mind the interests of those who have to apply the legislation as well as the practical considerations that affect those who are faced with the enforcement of the law about imitation weapons. It is most important, in our view, that there should be reasonable clarity.
Another important matter is that the restriction that the Bill would introduce should not be so comprehensive as to catch a large number of articles—I shall not call them weapons—which are really children's toys and not capable of causing harm to anyone, no matter how diligently they are worked upon by people with great skill in engineering, or in the art of the gunsmith, or whatever. We need to have a sensible practical balance.
Decisions have fallen on either side of the line. No clear criterion has emerged from the courts' decisions. That is not the fault of the courts. If anything, it could be said that it is the fault of Parliament in not anticipating the increase in dangerous activities at which my hon. Friend's Bill is directed. We have to do the best that we can. It therefore seemed to us in the Home Office that we could best help my hon. Friend if we considered the kind of criterion that should be applied so that it would be possible to say that those articles falling on one side of the line should be controlled and those falling on the other side should not be controlled.
Subsection (6) is the result of our joint efforts. It is important to bear in mind that it catches those replicas which can be converted to cause harm, or those which are able to shoot. Then the question arises: should we broaden the scope of the Bill to conversions that can be carried out only by people with very specialised knowledge—that of the gunsmith, or the skilled engineer or craftsman? Or should we say that that would not be effective? To protect the public, we should catch those replicas that can be readily converted. In my view, that is the right criterion to establish.
It would not be correct to say that the law is clear at present in the reports of cases in which judges have tried to apply, on the individual facts of each case, the definition contained in the Act. In my opinion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds has got it right. Of course, he has had the advantage of the advice of parliamentary counsel. The formula "readily convertible" has been

considered by parliamentary counsel. It is not likely to give rise to special difficulty, on the facts of an individual case, when it is applied in the courts.
I shall look carefully at the matter again, in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough says. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The amendments are not necessary for the purpose that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and all of us wish. I advise the House that, subject to further consideration, the Bill should be allowed to proceed as drafted.

Mr. Farr: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister know, I do not intend to press the amendment. Nevertheless, it is not right, apt, appropriate or proper for a Bill of this nature, however minimal its effect, to proceed through Second Reading on the nod, through the Committee without amendment and in less than an hour, and without proper discussion by the House.
Some of the replies given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds do not really hold water. To paraphrase his words, he said that the intention of the Bill was to counter the would-be crook who wants a handgun but cannot afford the real thing and therefore adapts a replica. That was the gist of what he said.
My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there is a flood of illicit handguns in Britain today. He is lucky enough to be closer than I am to the police and the Home Office authorities. He said that a replica could be bought for £30 or £40, which was considerably less than one would pay for a firearm on the black market. If I knew my hon. Friend better, I would take him to more than one establishment in London where an illicit handgun can be bought for less than that. I could also show him a number of premises in London and elsewhere where one can pay up to £100 for a replica.
Therefore, although I shall seek to withdraw the amendment, and the House would be foolish to ignore the advice of the skilled craftsmen and parliamentary technicians to whom my Friend has had the advantage of access, my reason for withdrawing the amendment will not be the argument that a replica can be obtained far more cheaply than an illicit firearm and that that is why people buy replicas. With great respect, it is the other way round. Replicas are very expensive, while illicit handguns can be bought in any of our major cities considerably more cheaply than a good quality replica.
The pistols legislation of 1920 dramatically reduced the legal possession of handguns, with the result that there are now only 50,000 or 60,000 legally held licensed handguns in Britain. Nevertheless, police authorities a few years ago estimated that the pool of illicitly held pistols and revolvers was no fewer than 350,000. In other words, they are just as common today, and a criminal has no difficulty in obtaining the real thing when he needs the tool for the job.
With those few remarks, as I am anxious to speed the passage of my hon. Friend's Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for withdrawing his amendments. He referred to the wide availability of illicit firearms in London. If that mischief is as widespread as he says, and as widespread as my associates in the police service agree that it is, he has illustrated the growing need to take any step open to us to limit the availability of firearms to criminals. My Bill does not cover that particular mischief, but it takes a small step in an area to which the law does not at present apply. My hon. Friend referred to a criminal act already covered by existing legislation.

Mr. Farr: On Report I was brief because I was anxious that we should complete Report stage. Had we had more time, I would have backed up my explanation with the forceful argument that the Pistols Act 1920 had the effect of driving underground many thousands of weapons. There is a huge pool of illicit handguns and a tiny pool of licensed weapons because the 1920 Act almost prohibits a citizen from legal possession. However, that is another argument.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which will be duly noted by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and his officials at the Home Office.
I shall be brief. It is probably common ground that it will he impossible to complete all stages of the Bill today. No doubt those who wish to make further comments will be able to do so—if the House is so minded—next Friday. Contrary to reports in the press, the Bill did not arise out of the incident on The Mall, when a person—who has since been convicted—caused alarm to Her Majesty the Queen when he fired six blank shots near her, just before the trooping of the colour. However, where is no doubt that that incident gave the Bill stronger wind than it might have received.
The matter is not new to the Home Office. On the contrary, a well-argued Green Paper was produced some years ago dealing with the whole subject of imitation firearms. It concluded that in the circumstances the existing law was about the best possible and that it might not be necessary to go much further. However, two factors have changed the situation. First, there has been a considerable increase in the carrying and use of firearms in the commission of crime. There is increasing evidence that many of the firearms used to menace people are replicas.
The problem is a statistical one. The police estimate that as many as 250,000 replica firearms may have been used in the commission of crime, but the difficulty is that we do not know for certain. Unfortunately, many crimes are not cleared up. Although a crime may be reported to have been carried out with a firearm, unless the police catch the offender they do not know whether the device that he was holding was a real or imitation weapons. There can be no certainty as to the size of the problem.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Or a converted imitation.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. As this is more a matter of speculation than certainty, I have relied to a great extent on the judgment of the police and now of the Home Department. The principal impetus behind the Bill has been the increased use of all sorts of firearms and, implicity, of imitation firearms in the commission of crime.
The second point—here I come close to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough—is that imitation firearms can be obtained for relatively little money. Of course, some are better replicas than others. I heard what my hon. Friend said about the ability of a would-be criminal to obtain a real weapon for a comparatively modest sum of money and I take that point most seriously. However, he would accept equally that, because those articles are advertised widely in the newspapers and many shops display them, youngsters and others can now go to shops in London or any large city and buy replicas, often for comparatively little money, and be tempted to use them in the commission of crime.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If one makes it too difficult for people to obtain imitation, firearms, someone who is minded to commit an offence and who would otherwise have taken an imitation might arm himself with a real weapon.

Mr. Griffiths: That is a slightly esoteric point, but I do not dismiss it for that reason. I can see that that might be the case, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will not argue that replica guns, which might be converted, should be made more easily available and cheaper, because that would lead to people not acquiring real firearms. That would be a perverse position, and I cannot imagine that being advanced as a serious proposition.
The reality is that firearms are used more and more in the commission of crime. Significant numbers are replicas, but some of the replicas can be converted. The Bill goes a small step along the way to plug that loophole in the law.
Another reason why I brought forward the Bill relates to the position in which the police service, with which I declare a connection, has occasionally been placed. An officer who guards the Palace of Westminster was walking, in plain clothes although on duty, near the Aldwych on the occasion when the Indian High Commission was held up by gunmen. He and a colleague saw some men with pistols holding up officials. The police officers drew their pistols, which they were authorised to carry because they were on a diplomatic protection mission, and shot one of the criminals, only to discover later that the devices with which the criminals were menacing the officials were replica weapons. The police officers were entitled to take the action that they did, but, as one of them said to me, they wished there were some protection against the increasing availability of replicas.
I think that the House will understand that it is a matter of psychology, not of law, that police officers consider it disadvantageous when they find that they have shot, and even killed, someone who in the event was holding a replica which it was not an offence to have, unless, of course, it was with intent to commit a crime.
I have had regard to the position in which the police service finds itself in bringing forward the Bill. Originally it had been conceived that the Bill would deal with convertibility and the look-alike nature of replicas. The Bill originally—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — RAPE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (FAIR COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — LONDON TRANSPORT (INQUIRY) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Shersby.]

Committee upon Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (LONDON) ACT 1969 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 9 July.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC OPINION POLLS (DISCLOSURE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — SALMON FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — WALKERS (ACCESS TO COUNTRYSIDE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — COPYRIGHT ACT 1956 (AMENDMENT) BILL Lords

Read a Second Time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Shersby.]

Committee upon Friday 14 May.

Orders of the Day — SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — Urea Formaldehyde Foam

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Neil Thorne: It gives me great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), in his place to answer this Adjournment debate. I know how hard my hon. Friend tries to help hon. Members with their constituents' problems.
My hon. Friend will know that the majority of low-rise building before 1940 was in 9 in. brickwork and that since 1945 it has been mainly of cavity construction. By using the same volume of material and by creating a gap of about 2 in. between the two skins, and using only the same amount of total material, usually with bricks on the outside and an inner skin of thermal blocks, it has been found possible to reduce the heat loss through the walls by about half. In technical terms that means a U value reduction from 2·3 to about 1·2. I apologise for those technical details, but as a chartered surveyor I believe that this is a matter of considerable importance.
About 20 years ago it was realised that by putting insulating material into the gap, the loss could be reduced by more than half again so that one finishes up with a heat loss of about one fifth of the total heat loss that would have taken place through a 9 in. brick wall. Because of the enormous increase in fuel prices during this period there have been major advances in cavity wall insulation. This normally takes three main forms. It can be of mineral wool, urea formaldehyde foam or polystyrene granules. The mineral wool and polystyrene granules are manufactured off site and are back-filled into the cavity through the gaps after bricks have been removed or holes have been made to facilitate that operation.
On the other hand, urea formaldehyde, which is created by the introduction of resin and a hardening material, is pumped into the cavity where it hardens off, and during that process it gives off a vapour. Urea formaldehyde has been used for a long time, particularly in the medical world. It is, I understand, even used in small quantities in the making of bread. Therefore, the substance has been in common use for a considerable time.
Since a vapour is given off the operatives who work on site must use masks to ensure that they do not take too much into their lungs or eyes. However, if people are subject to the vapour and they are not properly protected they often complain of nausea, sore eyes, skin rash, headaches, general lethargy, muscular pain, insatiable thirst and disturbed sleep, and I imagine that there are probably other symptons.
In most domestic properties the inner skin of the cavity is load-bearing and therefore this is relatively continuous and impervious to the vapour. I am told that over 1 million domestic properties have been treated in this way. However, in a number of cases that have recently come to my notice, including an old people's home in my constituency, it appears that no adequate check was made before application to ensure that the inner skin was impervious.
A number of heating ducts, for example, breached the cavity. The architect who designed the building did not of course, have it in mind that the cavity would be filled with

a substance that gave off vapour. As a consequence vapour was discharged into the premises while they were still occupied by residents and staff in March of last year. It was obvious that something had to be done, and in its usual efficient way, the local borough council, which has an excellent record for taking care of elderly people in the borough and which has extremely good relations with its staff, determined to do something as soon as possible. It called in the contractors and it was agreed that work should be done effectively to seal the inner skin. Therefore, the staff and patients were moved out about five weeks after the cavity had first been filled.
About five weeks later the patients and staff were allowed to return, the main remedial work having been carried out and the discharge of vapour having dropped considerably from the levels recorded when the substance was originally inserted. However, although the figures have continually dropped, during wet and windy weather the readings are inclined to rise giving positive signs in some rooms that the vapour is still present. The contractor left measuring apparatus on the site so measurements can be taken whenever necessary. Even on bad days the discharge is still within the limit that the factories inspectorate considers tolerable, but, nevertheless, it causes considerable distress, especially to people who were present when the work was originally carried out and who have now become especially sensitive to the vapour.
Recently, the problem has arisen at Hemel Hempstead, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who, unfortunately, is incapacitated and cannot be present, where a school has suffered. In all of these cases the problem appears to occur in unusual constructions. A house built conventionally with two skins usually has no difficulty, but in a purpose-designed building, such as a hospital, old people's home or school, often the architect had no knowledge or expectation that the cavity will be subsequently filled, so it was not designed to accommodate any such substance. Consideration should therefore be given to what might be done about the British Standards for dealing with the material.
Where it is desired to carry out such work, an inspection should be made of the site and an expert from the firm concerned should examine the structure, preferably using construction plans. Most properties which are likely to be treated will have been constructed since 1945 and it should not therefore be too difficult, through either the owner or the local authority, to gain access to plans for investigation to establish whether difficulties are likely to arise by the addition of a substance giving off vapour. Where plans are not available, the contractor should be required to carry out a pressure or smoke test to ensure that no inside emission is possible.
For example, in the structure in Southend the cavities around the windows and at roof level especially were open and the fumes free to escape into the atmosphere inside the building. That is, in my view, a failure on the part of the contractors, probably through ignorance. They did not check that that would be likely to happen, and I understand that the school has now been made unusable for a number of weeks. If that is likely, those people who are not wearing protective masks and clothing are bound to suffer.
We then come to the most important aspect of the case. Is that suffering likely to be temporary or is it likely to be long-term? If the latter, are we thinking in terms of five or 10 years, or could people be sensitised for the whole of 

their lives? Obviously, it will seriously impair their pleasure and their opportunity to find employment, because they will have to avoid any environment that might include this substance.
I understand that the Consumer Product Safety Commission in America has expressed grave concern over the use of the product and has instituted a ban on the use of urea formaldehyde, which is subject to ratification by both Congress and Senate. I should like to know whether the Minister has any information, either from the United States of America or as a result of research carried out recently in Britain, on the effects on health of foam vapour.
I refer particularly here to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave in a written answer on 18 March this year, at c. 193. I am most anxious to know whether any known antidote has been established, and whether there are likely to be any long-term or more serious effects that my constituents could suffer through having been subjected to an excessive dose of this vapour when it was first used on their premises.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for raising this subject today, because it gives me the opportunity to review the uses of the material, the problems to which it can give rise and the actions that the Government are taking to deal with it.
I would not dissent from the perceptive historical analysis with which my hon. Friend introduced his remarks. He gave the history of how dwellings in Britain have been constructed. As he said, urea formaldehyde foam has been used here for about 20 years to insulate the cavity walls of houses. It is an effective and relatively inexpensive insulant, and it has brought substantial benefits in energy conservation.
A broad estimate, which my hon. Friend mentioned—based on the figures of Audits of Great Britain Limited—suggests that about 1 million dwellings in Great Britain have been insulated with the material concerned.
The overwhelming majority of those dwellings have walls of traditional double masonry construction, by which I mean walls with brick or block outer and inner leaves spaced apart by some 50 millimetres. I appreciate, of course, that timber frame housing is now being constructed in increasing quantity in the United Kingdom, but this particular type of house still forms only a small fraction of the total stock, and information available to the Building Research Establishment suggests that very few houses of this kind have been insulated with urea formaldehyde foam.
In saying this, I would not deny the fact that UF foam has been used to insulate some houses not of masonry construction. It is not suitable where the inner walls are lightly built, in some cases consisting only of plasterboard which does not provide a sufficient barrier to formaldehyde vapour penetration.
I am also aware that UF foam has been used in hospitals, schools and non-housing situations, and that a particular type of foam has been used on a small scale to

insulate lofts. The extent of those uses is currently being determined by the Building Research Establishment and I shall return to the Government's attitude to those uses in a moment.
Using ingredients of the right composition, mixed in correct proportions, and installed by trained operators in walls that are soundly built and of appropriate construction, UF foam does not give rise to significant problems of formaldehyde smell. The British Standards Institution reports that in a sample of over 150,000 houses insulated with this material under its certification scheme, there was a complaint of smell after eight weeks in only 0·04 per cent. of installations. The initial complaint rate was higher but in most cases the installer was able to take effective remedial action. Most of these were probably cases in which there were undetected defects in the inner masonry leaf, allowing easier penetration of the formaldehyde vapour into the dwelling.
Formaldehyde vapour, when it does enter the building, can sometimes cause irritation of the respiratory tract and the eyes of occupants. Formaldehyde is also known to produce sensitivity of the skin and respiratory tract in a small proportion of individuals.
We have no evidence that a significant proportion of people in this country are allergic to formaldehyde. If allergy is suspected, the normal allergy treatment is appropriate. If positive, the usual anti-allergy treatments are recommended. My hon. Friend referred to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction in a written answer of 18 March. This stated that
the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security, who is the Government's senior adviser on health matters, has indicated that the completed studies of people exposed to formaldehyde vapour have not found any evidence that it causes cancer, changes in lung structure, or permanent impairment of lung function in man."—[Official Report, 18 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 193.]
Further research on animals in the United States is being evaluated by a DHSS expert advisory committee, and in this country and in North America several wide-ranging surveys of the health of people who have been exposed during their work to concentrations of formaldehyde substantially greater than will be encountered in insulated buildings are in progress.
Their results should be available next year. All the evidence on possible health effects of low-level and long-term exposure to formaldehyde is being reviewed by the expert committees who advise my right hon. Friend the Secrtary of State. I say this to emphasise to my hon. Friend that present evidence does not indicate any hazard to health at formaldehyde vapour concentrations liable to be attained in properly insulated dwellings. Concentration in such situations, where these have been measured, have in all cases been substantially below the limit value established to protect workers in industry.
Perhaps this is the point for me to remind the House that formaldehyde, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is not only used in UF foam. It is widely used in plastics, resins, chipboard, and many other products from which its vapour can also escape. It is an important biological preservative. In some industrial situations, it can attain much higher concentrations than in non-industrial buildings. Questions of its safety have much wider implications than those we are debating today. Because of the importance of this material, it is right that we give close attention to all the


medical evidence as it comes to hand, and I can assure my hon. Friend that this is and will continue to be the Government's policy.
My hon. Friend mentioned the United States. It is perhaps right that I say something about the differences between the situation in North America and the United Kingdom. It is a fact that in both Canada and the United States concern over the emission and effects of formaldehyde vapour has led to a ban on UF foam in the former country and the proposal of one in the latter. But the circumstances are different. The majority of North American houses are of timber frame construction, with wide cavities and inner walls that are relatively readily penetrated by formaldehyde vapour. As I said earlier, we in Britain do not regard these as appropriate to insulation with UF foam, and have not normally used it in such dwellings.
Both Canada and the United States, moreover, have lacked the apparatus of control through building regulations, and of advice and guidance through the British Standards Institution and through a responsible trade association, which have been fortunate features of the British scene. I say this to stress that there are substantial differences between the United States and Canadian situations and our own.
None the less, I appreciate that the actions in North America, together with reports of cases in this country where formaldehyde has entered buildings and caused symptoms including irritation, have caused concern among architects and industry alike.
Very recently, the Royal Institute of British Architects has advised members who intend to use the foam to obtain warranties from the manufacturer, supplier and installer and to discuss use of the material with their clients in advance. It is clearly right that those in the building industry do all that they can to ensure that any installation is done using high quality ingredients, to a good standard of workmanship, and that purchasers understand what they are buying.
I must stress that we already have substantial control machinery. There are two British standards that bear on urea formaldehyde foam. The first, BS5617, specifies the quality that should be attained by the raw materials to be used, in producing the foam and the performance to be expected of the resulting foam if it is to be suitable for cavity wall insulation. A second British standard, which is in the form of a code of practice—BS5618—describes how the foam should be installed, and the properties of the masonry—masonry cavity wall that make it suitable for filling. The British standard lays great stress on climate, because our earlier concern with cavity insulation was that it would allow damp to penetrate through the outer walls of a house more readily.
The standard lays down conditions for exposure in terms of driving rain and also limits wall height. It also describes the essential procedures and precautions to be adopted by those installing foam. It does not deal with walls other than those of double masonry construction.
The British Standards Institution has also established a surveillance scheme under which firms conducting the installation of this material can be registered. Those thus registered are expected to comply with the two British standards and to undertake proper training of their staff. The Department of the Environment has issued type relaxation direction 4 under the building regulations, allowing firms registered with the British Standards

Institution under this scheme to insert foam upon seven days' notice to a local authority. Those not thus registered would be required to make a specific application for each individual installation, and to go through the full procedures of local authority scrutiny.
In addition to those controls, the National Cavity Installers Association, as the relevant trade association, provides guidance to its members on the procedures for satisfactory installation of foam and on the training of personnel. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that adds up to a substantial framework of controls.
My hon. Friend mentioned two instances that he has brought to our attention. I take it that the Hyleford old people's home is the home to which he referred He has written to my Department and I shall shortly be replying, telling him that if the appropriate authority approaches the BRE for an investigation through its advisory service it would be happy to undertake such an investigation and to give advice on building and construction matters, on the usual terms of such investigations.
I take it that the school to which my hon. Friend referred was the one in Westcliff. My Department has not been involved in any investigation of the building, but we are in touch with the Health and Safety Executive and we are aware of the visits and measurements that it has made at the school and at the old people's home. I understand that the school is to be re-opened on 17 May, doubtless to the relief of the parents concerned.
My hon. Friend has made a number of points that deserve a response and I should like to stress that my Department is not content to rest at this point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has instituted a substantial supplementary programme of research to ascertain more precisely the extent to which formaldehyde vapour does penetrate into the interior of buildings of various types insulated with UF foam, and the survey is looking at houses other than those of double masonry construction and installations in other types of buildings.
A review of the scope of building regulations in this area is also in hand, and we are in consultation with the British Standards Institution about the possibility of a revision of its standard, making it explicit that it is inappropriate to use this material in this form in any buildings other than those which combine double masonry construction with other features that make penetration of vapour into the interior unlikely.

Mr. Thorne: Can my hon. Friend help over the sensitivity that is acquired by those who are subjected to the vapour and whether they are likely to suffer for long? It appears that if a person suffers an excessive dose at some stage, subsequent minor doses can cause the original distress to return. Does my hon. Friend have any information on that and, if not, will he look into it?

Sir George Young: I am happy to give my hon. Friend such information as I have. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract. The threshold for mild eye irritation may be as low as 0·01 parts per million in some particularly sensitive individuals; 4 parts per million and above causes the eyes to water in most individuals and higher levels will have marked irritant effects on the nose and throat. However, the available evidence from occupational studies suggests that


those effects are reversible and that formaldehyde does not cause chronic impairment of lung function at the levels encountered in the work place.
As I said a few minutes ago, we have no evidence that a significant proportion of people in Britain are allergic to formaldehyde. If allergy is suspected, the normal treatment is appropriate and if positive, the usual anti-allergy treatments are recommended. If my hon. Friend wants any additional information, I shall be happy to give it to him in correspondence.
We are here dealing with a material that has brought substantial benefits to the community through energy conservation. We have not encountered the difficulties

that have emerged in North America. We have hundreds of thousands of houses where the foam has been installed without any complaints arising; it has brought substantial savings to the occupants.
However, we are working on the strengthening of the framework of advice and control so as to guard against inappropriate use, and we are also keeping under close and searching review all the medical evidence about the toxicity of formaldehyde available both in this country and overseas as it becomes available to our expert advisers.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that the Government are aware of the issues that he has raised and have formulated an appropriate response to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.